Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Korach

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Korach 28 Sivan 5762 ========================== 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 rabbi's to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship coupled with community service, ensures its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations and the strongest connection to Jewish communities worldwide. ============================================ A Lethal Ripple Effect It is easy to lose track of who is against whom in the machloket (dispute) between Korach and company and Moshe and Aharon. Korach was swallowed up and 250 incense burners were consumed by Divine fire. Subsequently, Bnei Yisrael assembled to blame Moshe and Aharon for the harsh punishments of their compatriots. A Divine plague began striking the people until Aharon stopped it with incense. The people had claimed that Moshe's idea that the 250 should perform an unauthorized burning of incense, something which had already killed Nadav an Avihu, was malicious. Were they so wrong? Couldn't Moshe have dealt just with Korach and left the 250 out of it? By investigating the p'sukim and giving some thought to the dynamics of machloket, we may shed light on the matter. Already before the showdown with Korach, Hashem told Moshe to distance himself from the eidah (congregation), and then He would "destroy them in a moment" (ואכלה אותם כרגע) (Bamidbar 16:21). Moshe argued on the eidah's behalf, saying that they had not sinned and should not be killed. Who were the people of the eidah, who were in danger of destruction? Rabbeinu Chananel says that they were the 250 men of adat Korach, who were actively involved in the machloket. He explains that Moshe claimed that they were innocent, because he thought Hashem was referring to all of Bnei Yisrael. The Ramban, taking issue with the claim that Moshe misunderstood the prophesy, explains that all Bnei Yisrael were culpable for their sympathy for Korach's claims. Moshe countered that they had not actively sinned. Among other indications to the veracity of the Ramban's explanation, the Torah may hint at the identity of the eidah several p'sukim later. After Bnei Yisrael complained about the deaths and before the plague began, Hashem used almost identical language in telling Moshe to separate himself from the eidah, "ואכלה אותם כרגע" (Bamidbar 17:9). This may indicate that the same group which Hashem had suggested to strike before they had openly rebelled, now had to be punished for actively joining the machloket. Several commentators claim that the 250 incense burners had some positive intentions and therefore their incense pans could be incorporated into the mizbeach (see Chatam Sofer). Certainly, the eidah as a whole was not nearly as guilty as Korach and his entourage and made some reasonable points. Yet Moshe knew that there was no way Hashem would spare the 250 from death, and even large parts of the general eidah, whom Moshe had protected for not actually sinning, were eventually hit by plague. The conclusion and the lesson are unavoidable. Machloket is highly infectious. Even if it seems clearly centered in a certain place, machloket seems to find a way to spread even after the initial combatants are removed. It has a deceptive "incubation period" and seems to be transferred through a variety of media. Mad Cow Disease required the slaughter of entire flocks to thwart rampant spread. Similarly, Korach's scheme forced Hashem to destroy a few rings of participants, including those who began as almost innocent bystanders. Of course, while despising machloket, we are in no moral position to fight against its participants in the manner that Hashem and Moshe did. There are even times when we have no choice but to get involved in a machloket, l'shem shamayim (for Heaven's sake). However, the call to separate ourselves from machloket and its perpetrators is eternal and is a crucial one to heed. ============================================ We dedicate this issue to the memory of Rebbetzin Miriam Greenblatt, ע"ה, of Memphis, TN. Among her many accomplishments, she taught the lesson of avoiding machloket the way she taught everything -- by example. ============================================ Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Aliyah Against the Wishes of Parents - Part I (condensed from Amud Hay'mini 22) [Many of our readers have given thought to occasional conflict between those who wish to make aliyah and their parents who want them close to "home." We remind our readers that Moreshet Shaul is a translation and condensation of Rav Yisraeli z.t.l.'s works and that it is not written to give p'sak halacha, but to expose our readers to a taste of our mentor's breadth and depth of analysis. The first two parts deal with olim who already live in Israel.] Ostensibly, a parent's request to his children not to live in Eretz Yisrael should be rejected. The gemara (Bava Metzia 32a) learns from "a person should revere his mother and father, and my Shabbat shall you keep" (Vayikra 19:3) that one should not listen to a parent's command to violate the Torah. The Rambam (Mamrim 6:12) extends this rule, saying that one may not accept a parent's request to violate even a Rabbinic law. The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) explains that Rabbinic laws are mandated by the Torah's instruction not to stray from the Rabbis' words (Devarim 17:11). In truth, the Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvot, Shoresh 1) disagrees with the Rambam and says that Rabbinic laws do not have a Torah component. However, the Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvot, Asei 4) states that inhabiting Eretz Yisrael is a Torah law, and the Rambam holds that it is at least Rabbinic. Thus, both should agree to disregard the parents' command. However, the ruling is unclear. The gemara (Kiddushin 31b) tells of Rav Asi, who had moved to Eretz Yisrael, leaving behind an old mother. Upon hearing that she was coming, he asked Rav Yochanan "if one can leave Eretz Yisrael to go to chutz la'aretz to go [to greet] his mother." Rav Yochanan answered that he was unsure. When Rav Asi approached him again, Rav Yochanan said: "You have decided to go. May Hashem return you in peace." There are three approaches to understanding this exchange: 1) Rav Yochanan thought that Rav Asi desired to move back permanently to chutz la'aretz out of respect for his mother and permitted it anyway (Rashi, according to Maharsha and Maharit, ad loc.) Rashi may mean that R. Yochanan thought he wanted to move back, because he had never planned to stay in Eretz Yisrael, like many rabbinical students of then (and now). The prohibition to leave Eretz Yisrael applies only to those who came with the intention to stay. 2) The request and permission referred to going to greet his mother and return (Maharsha, ad loc.). 3) The issue was that Rav Asi was a kohen (see Gittin 59b), who is forbidden rabbinically to enter chutz la'aretz even temporarily due to tumat eretz ha'amim (impurity of foreign lands). In certain cases, permission is granted to a kohen to leave (see Avoda Zara 13a), including Rav Asi's (Maharit). Note that permission for a kohen to enter the Diaspora temporarily is equivalent to another's permission to emigrate there permanently. We continue next week with conclusions from this gemara. ====================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: I lent a neighbor a few eggs, and she returned bigger eggs than I gave her. Isn't that ribbit (interest)? What do I do now? Answer: Let's start with what to do when asked to lend the eggs and proceed to after the fact. The mishna (Bava Metzia 75a) states that one may not lend an object in a way that obligates the borrower to return the same type and amount of the object. This Rabbinic form of ribbit, known as se'ah b'se'ah, is forbidden out of fear that the object will go up in price, and the borrower will have to return more value than he received. The problem, which begins at the time of the loan, exists even if the object's price did not change. Several methods and cases of leniency are found in the gemara and poskim, but some are too complex to explain in this forum. One example, which works well with things like eggs (at least in Israel) is the concept of yatza hasha'ar (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 162:3). It permits loan of a commodity with a stable price, which is either set by the government or is otherwise stable for at least days at a time (i.e. if there is a manufacturer's recommended price, even if some retailers give reductions- see Torat Ribbit 7:14). This heter is on condition that the commodity is readily available (ibid.) and that the lender can return his loan as early as he wants (Rama YD 162:3). In such a case, it doesn't matter if the price goes up before payment is made. The most practical heter applies to cases of healthy, neighborly relationships. The gemara (ibid.) rules that one can lend loaves of bread to a friend without stipulations. The Rama (ibid.:1) rules like those who explain that the possible small changes in the value of small quantities of a product is not considered purposeful interest. Rather, it merely represents a loose manner of accounting between friends. Although it seems that the Shulchan Aruch rejects this position (Gra ibid.:5), causing problems for the Sephardic Jews, it appears from the Beit Yosef (ad loc.) that if a set of neighbors has a clear, preferably long standing policy of not caring exactly how much is returned, then even Sephardim could be lenient. Both of these heterim are problematic when the borrower returns a clearly larger quantity than he borrowed (Torat Ribbit 7:(7); Brit Yehuda 17:(4)). If the "lender" states honestly when he lends the commodity that, from his perspective, he is giving a present and not a loan, then it is irrelevant if he receives more (see Rama, Orach Chayim 170:13). Even if you should not have received the larger eggs (which we cannot determine from your question), it was Rabbinic-level ribbit because the additional payment was voluntary. Such ribbit need not be returned (Shulchan Aruch YD 161:2; see Rama ad loc.). One must try to avoid causing unpleasantness with neighbors, not learned in halachic intricacies, which can occur when one makes simple, neighborly activities overly legalistic and taxing. ======================================== 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