Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Kdoshim 5763

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Kedoshim 1 Iyar 5763 This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to Jewish communities worldwide. Different Perspectives on "On" Our parasha contains a phrase, made up of simple words, that is hard to even translate: "Do not eat on ("al") the blood" (Vayikra 19:26). Rashi mentions some of the extrapolations from the pasuk that are found in Sanhedrin 63a. One is not to eat from the meat of korbanot (sacrifices) before their blood is thrown at the altar. Another is not to eat the blood of any animal before it fully dies. According to these two explanations the word al doesn't mean "on" but rather "before." You cannot eat the meat before this or that is done to the blood. The apparent source of this approach is the proximity to the Torah's prohibition of orlah (see Ibn Ezra). The laws of orlah tell us that one cannot eat fruit before three years have passed or before he has brought the fourth year's produce to the Beit Hamikdash. The weak point of this explanation is that al does not mean "before." Rav Sa'adya Gaon, thus, takes a different approach, saying that al means "with." This translation has ample precedent in Tanach. One example is as follows. The banner of the camp of Ephraim ... and with (alav) it the tribe of Menashe (Bamidbar 2:18-20). Additional corroboration can be found in Bereishit 14:6; ibid. 18:2; Shemot 16:3; ibid. 35:22; Yeshaya 6:2; ibid. 7:2; Nechemia 3:2; and more. These explanations do not take into account the end of our pasuk, "Lo t'nachashu v'lo t'oneinu" (do not be involved in various forms of sorcery). The Ramban indeed uses this proximity as the basis of his explanation. He says that there was a practice of witchcraft, which included pouring blood over a pit and eating at that place, and this is what is forbidden. The shortcoming of this approach is that, while it takes into account the proximity to witchcraft, it does not explain the connection to orlah. The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim) has an approach that takes both elements into account. There were people who engaged in witchcraft to try to hasten the agricultural growth process. Most trees take a few years until they start yielding significant fruit. The Jewish approach was, instead of using illegitimate means to try to hasten the process, to tell the person that he must anyway wait. In the fourth year, instead of partaking in the type of idolatrous feast that the Torah prohibits, we are to bring the fruit before Hashem and give thanks to Him. Even within our "rational world," there are people who stream to all different forms of mysticism. It is important for us all to remember to be pure in our behavior before Hashem (Devarim 18:13), which includes not looking for signs about the future. Rather, "all that happens to you accept without question, and then you will belong to Him and to His portion" (Rashi, ad loc.). ============================================ P'ninat Mishpat :Whether A Promised Donation to Charity is Binding on Inheritors (based on Piskei Din Rabbani'im, vol. 16, pp. 1-16) [The following condensation of a ruling of the rabbinical court of Yerushalayim is but a presentation of certain highlights. The actual p'sak din is very lengthy in presenting the halachic background but cryptic in describing the actual case.] A man made certain promises to give objects to charity and died before carrying out these promises. His inheritors now do not want to honor the promises, saying that they were accepted by their father, not by them, and, as the present owners of the objects, they should not be bound by his promises. There is a concept in regard to donations to hekdesh (holy property of the Beit Hamikdash) that one's word given to hekdesh is equivalent to handing over to a regular person. The Rashba (Shut I, 563) rules that similar promises to charity are not binding by virtue of oral assurances without an act of acquisition. Along these lines, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 252:2) rules: "One who makes an oath to give a certain amount to a certain person and dies without giving, his inheritors are exempt from paying." (The implication is that this ruling applies to cases where the intended recipient was poor). The Rama (ibid. 212:7) seems to contradict himself in the case of one who makes a pledge to give the fruits of a certain tree to charity. He says that, although the pledge is not binding before the fruits grow, if he is still alive when the fruit grow, he is obligated based on the laws of oaths to give them. The implication is that even after his death, his inheritors would be obligated to give the donation, as long as the oath took effect in the donor's lifetime. The Netivot Hamishpat (250:4) makes the following distinction, which can reconcile the two rulings. If the donation was general, relating to a sum of money, then it doesn't take hold until it is given and does not obligate the inheritors. In contrast, if the donation related to a specific item, then the obligation takes hold on the object (as of when it exists in the world). In such a case, the inheritors are required to hand over that specific object. [After much discussion,] it appears that there are different understandings to the opinion of the Rama in our case, and therefore, it is not possible to force the inheritors to fulfill their father's pledge. However, it is proper to encourage the two sides to agree to a compromise ruling on a certain percentage of the original pledge. =============================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Torah and the Land - part II (condensed from Gaon Batorah U'vamidot, pg. 249-253) [We saw the midrash that had Moshe, not Yehoshua, led Bnei Yisrael into the Land, there would have been no destruction in Jewish history. Last week, we discussed the positive elements that Yehoshua incorporated into the initial conquest of Yericho. Now we will see what was lacking, and how it caused a reaction which enabled the destruction to take place.] What was missing in Yehoshua's efforts? Yehoshua was commanded in the beginning of his leadership, "The sefer Torah shall not move from your mouth and you shall deal with it day and night" (Yehoshua 1:8). While Yehoshua was busy on the practical elements of the conquest of Yericho, he neglected the fundamental condition for the achievements to survive, involvement in Torah study. Chazal (Megilla 3a) tell us that the angel who visited Yehoshua as the battle was in the making (Yehoshua 5) came to stress the importance of Torah study. Even if the days were to be filled with warfare, the nights were to be filled with Torah study. "Great is Torah study, because it enables action." Without study, the physical and spiritual gains of action will weaken and disappear. "Torah protects and saves" (Sota 21). It brings a person into a spiritual state, almost like the world to come, putting worldly matters in their proper perspective. Otherwise, the physical matters entice the person, and he may be unable to conquer his inclinations. "If this disgusting one (the yetzer hara) meets up with you, drag him to the beit hamidrash" (Sukka 52). Failure to put involvement in Torah study in the center of the initial conquest apparently caused the nation to lack the power to overcome the upcoming trials and circumstances. Eventually, they reached such a low point that they sinned the cardinal sins and were fit for the destruction of the beit hamikdash and the dominion by the nations over them. The mishna (Avot 1:1) tells us that Moshe transmitted the Torah to Yehoshua, who transmitted it to the z'keinim (elders), who transmitted to the n'vi'im (prophets). Why couldn't the z'keinim transfer to other z'keinim? The z'keinim represent people from among the nation, but n'vi'im are those with unusual characteristics. When only n'vi'im have the Torah, it is a sign that it is separate from the nation as a whole. The result: "The nation served Hashem all the days of Yehoshua and the days of the z'keinim who lived on after him" (Shoftim 2:7). After that point, the chain was broken. Perhaps this is the intention of Chazal's explanation of the destruction, which the Torah describes as "'for leaving my Torah' - that they did not make a blessing in the Torah in the beginning" (Bava Metzia 85b). Perhaps this is not referring to a failure to make a blessing before Torah study, but to the failure to sufficiently incorporate Torah in the beginning of the conquest of the Land. In this way, Moshe would not have faltered. He explained to Yitro that the throngs of people who waited to ask him questions were there to seek Hashem" (Shemot 18:15). While Yitro saw the people as coming with petty squabbles, Moshe saw the situation as an opportunity to instill in the litigants the wisdom of the Torah and Divine Justice. Moshe and Torah were so intertwined that the Torah is called "the Torah of my servant Moshe" (Malachi 3:22). Had Moshe entered the land, the Torah would have been so loved by the nation, that it, indeed, would not have left their mouths. Then they would have not deteriorated and learned to sin like the surrounding nations. On the contrary, they would have inspired their neighbors to cling to Hashem, as Yeshaya foresaw for the times of Mashiach. ================================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: I am disturbed by the refusal of some religious Jews to stand for the siren on Yom Hazikaron (Israel Memorial Day). Someone told me it is forbidden to do so. If this is so, why doesn't the rabbinate come out against it? If not, shouldn't all religious Jews stand? Answer: Those who say it is forbidden to stand for the minute of silence on Yom Hazikaron claim it is a problem of chukot hagoyim (following practices of gentile nations). Indeed, the practice was learned from non-Jews, and there is such a prohibition, which is learned from Vayikra 18:2. However, we have not found a published p'sak that rules that it is forbidden and explains why (it is possible that one exists). Furthermore, based on the classical sources on the subject, it is difficult to forbid the practice on halachic grounds. There is an apparent contradiction between two gemarot on the parameters of chukot hagoyim. There was a practice of both Jews and non-Jew to burn objects after their king's death. The gemarot agree the practice is permitted, but give different reasons. Avoda Zara 11a says that the activity does not fall under the category of chuka, but is an act of chashivuta (showing importance). Sanhedrin 52b says that it is a chuka but is permitted only because there is a pasuk (Yirmiya 34:5) that makes it a Jewish practice before a non-Jewish one. Tosafot (Avoda Zara 11a) explains that these gemarot are complementary. The chuka of Avoda Zara refers to a practice connected to idol worship proper. In such a case, a preceding Jewish source for the custom is insufficient. But, says the gemara, the burning was not an idolatrous act. Sanhedrin refers to a general, gentile process, which is permitted only if there is a Jewish precedent. We need to define what counts as a chuka, because if we go to an extreme, we would have to forbid all sorts of things, such as wearing a suit and tie (see Igrot Moshe YD I, 81 who explains why this is not so). The Maharik (88) explains that practices that are initiated by non-Jews for logical reasons and are not negative in nature are not considered chukot at all. The Rama (YD 178:1) paskens like the Maharik, as do a predominant majority of poskim (see Maharam Shick YD 165, Yabia Omer III, YD 24, and many others), despite the Gra's (YD 178:7) protestations. (See Rav Y. Henkin's article in Techumin IV, where he tries to prove that the Gra would agree in our case.) It is not always simple to apply the rules to contemporary situations. For example, in three teshuvot, Rav Moshe Feinstein z.t.l. wrestles from different perspectives with the issue of whether elements of the American, Thanksgiving holiday are chukot hagoyim (Igrot Moshe YD IV, 12 deals with the contradiction). But in our case, the Maharik's requirements are clearly met. Anyone who has experienced standing at the siren as the whole country stops everything together, silently contemplating the sacrifice and contribution of the fallen kedoshim, knows how effective a remembrance it is. It is, thus, fully logical and permitted. So why can't we all agree? Some within the religious community frown upon almost anything that symbolizes the Israeli government or general society. Although we share many of their complaints, our approach is to be thankful to Hashem and to the people who have sacrificed to enable all the good that comes with our Jewish State. While it is a chillul Hashem not to stand (all the more so, in public), publicizing the phenomenon, which applies to a minority of the religious community, makes more chillul Hashem. We feel that one most effectively deals with conflicts among our people with love, not, for example, by yelling, "Shabbos!" For the sake of consistency and a desire to make things better, not worse, we urge that this disagreement be handled with love and understanding, not mud-slinging. =========================================== Harav Shaul Israeli zt"l Founder and President Deans: Harav Yosef Carmel Harav Moshe Ehrenreich ERETZ HEMDAH 5 Ha-Mem Gimmel St. P.O.B 36236 Jerusalem 91360 Tel/Fax: 972-2-5371485 Email: eretzhem@netvision.net.il web-site: www.eretzhemdah.org American Friends of Eretz Hemdah Institutions c/o Olympian 8 South Michigan Ave. Suite 605 Chicago, IL 60603 USA Our Taxpayer ID#: 36-4265359

Main > Parashat Shavua
Eretz_Hemdah