Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Noach

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Noach 6 Cheshvan 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 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 Shift in the Focus of Unity After the sinfulness which brought about the Great Flood, the descendants of the survivors, known as the dor hahaflaga, joined together to rebel against Hashem (in one form or another- see the commentaries). Hashem countered by mixing up their speech, so that one did not understand the other, thus foiling their plot. Why did they not get as severe a punishment as their predecessors did? Rashi (11:9) brings the classic explanation that the unity of the dor hahaflaga was so beloved by Hashem that it greatly mitigated the otherwise horrible sin. What seems ironic to a problematic degree, though, is that the punishment wiped out the one main virtue that these people had, their unity. Couldn't Hashem have foiled their plan and punished them in another way, while encouraging or at least allowing their continued unity? After some thought on the nature of human unity and another look at our parasha one can suggest the following. The ability of man to unite was not hindered by the mixing up of languages- it was redirected. Mankind at that time united to undertake a major project. But the yetzer hara of man causes him to compete against that which is outside his unit. Perhaps that is sad, but it is psychologically and historically self-evident. With all of humanity united, who was their target? Hashem. That phenomenon was put to an end. No longer would all of humanity be able to speak the same language, literally, and more importantly, figuratively. So where is the room for unity, which is such an important value? In listing the descendants of Noach, our parasha mentions three times in similar language the following description of the family groups: "These are... according to their families, by their languages, in their lands, by their nations" (Bereishit 11:31). Why are languages mentioned in connection to families? The fact that each family group became distinct, with its own language and land, gave it a unique identity. This family/nation unit became the focal point for the application of the value of unity. Thus, a unified group of people would and apparently should show their unity by forging strong, reliable, loving bonds of unity on the familial and national level. To expect that full unity can exist on a higher level on the global level is to fight the Divine decree on the dor hahaflaga. We pray for the time when all of humanity will once again be united, this time to serve Hashem, not to rebel against Him. Until then, we will have to suffice with true unity on a family/national level (which is certainly not easily attained) and with amicable relations with other nations. ====================================== P'ninat Mishpat - Intra-familial Obligations - Part II We saw last week that Chazal preferred that, as much as possible, people should provide for their dependants willingly. One example revolves around the dowry. It was commonplace and expected that a father would provide a significant dowry for his daughter's marriage. This was one of the ways which enabled the father to help facilitate her marriage (Ketubot 52b). (Many of us have probably heard stories from grandparents about girls in Europe who didn't have dowries and had difficulty marrying). Chazal did not feel it was wise and/or practical to require fathers to give a certain amount of money for this purpose. Thus, a father cannot be sued to make him pay a dowry. On the other hand, he was encouraged by an interesting halacha to give a handsome dowry. According to the basic law of ketuba, a woman receives her ketuba if she is divorced or widowed. If she dies before husband, he inherits the money and/or property which is incorporated in the ketuba, including the dowry. If the dowry was big and the husband had more children from other marriages, then the father's riches could end up going, after the husband's death, to someone else's grandchildren. In order to avoid a father from cutting back on the dowry because of that fear, Chazal instituted ketubat banin dichrin (the ketuba of the male sons), as we will explain next week, with Hashem's help. ===================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Areas Occupied by the Kuttim (from Eretz Hemdah I, 4:11) There were areas which were captured by Bnei Yisrael when they originally entered the land but were not reoccupied by the returning exiles from Bavel (Chagiga 3a). [We have omitted discussion on these borders, as they are too technical for this forum.] The gemara (Chagiga 25a) reports that a section of land, occupied by the Kuttim, effectively separated the lands of Yehuda and Shomron. [The Kuttim were brought in by the Assyrians to inhabit the area (Shomron) from which the Ten Tribes were exiled.] What was the status of this area? The Yerushalmi (Shvi'it 6) quotes Rav Avahu that there were cities of Kuttim where there was a practice of leniency (that terumot and ma'asrot did not need to be taken) from the time of Yehoshua. The gemara brings a contradiction on the matter and gives a cryptic answer that is understood in two different ways by the commentators. Rash Sirilio explains that the area had been captured during the First Commonwealth, yet the land was exempt from terumot because it was set aside for the [non-Jewish] king. The P'nei Moshe explains that the land had never been conquered in a complete manner. According to Rash Sirilio, the land had a full status of Eretz Yisrael and was apparently also sanctified by the olim from Bavel, as the exemption was only because of the connection of the non-Jewish king. (According to the Rambam, the olei Bavel are irrelevant, for he holds that the original sanctification was sufficient to obligate in terumot, even if it was not renewed). Even according to the P'nei Moshe, it appears that only some of the cities were exempt, not the entire strip of Kuttite settlement. This is logical, as the pasuk describes the Kuttim as occupying territory in place of Bnei Yisrael, implying that it was previously under the full control of Bnei Yisrael. Additionally, the mishna (D'mai 7:4) talks about the need to determine whether ma'aser had been taken from produce one had bought from the area of the Kuttim. In other words, this land was considered a full part of Eretz Yisrael at that time. Later on, there was an injunction against the Kuttim, which included treating their land with the status of impurity assigned to chutz la'aretz. This impurity applied to the entire strip of land, whereas the exemption from terumot applied only to a few cities for the reasons we mentioned above. ================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: An amud was donated to our shul. May the name of the donor be written above Hashem's Name (in the pasuk "Shiviti Hashem l'negdi tamid")? Answer: We have several sources in Chazal that indicate that Hashem's Name should normally be before other names. The gemara (Sukka 5a) states that on the tzitz (the headplate of the kohen gadol, which contained the inscription, kadosh la'Hashem"), the Name of Hashem was elevated above "kadosh la." This was done out of respect to the Name. This idea was even clear to non-Jews. The rabbis who wrote the original Septuagint, started the text with Hashem's Name, not with the word, "Bereishit" (Megilla 9a). Tosafot (ad loc.) explains that since the Greeks understood that it is proper that G-d's Name appear first, they would have thought that there were two deities, Bereishit and Elokim. Why, in fact, isn't Hashem's name mentioned first there and elsewhere? The last mishna of Masechet Yadayim records the criticism of the Tzedukim of the fact that the name of the king (in context of the date) in the get before the mention of Moshe. The Rabbis responded that in the sefer Torah, we find the name of Paroh before Hashem's. Commentaries (see Tiferet Yisrael, ad loc.) understand that when there is a specific need to write another name first, this can be done without it being a disgrace to Hashem. In the case of the get and the sefer Torah the need is a matter of textual content. Although it would have made more sense to have Hashem's Name after the words, "kodesh la" on the tztitz, there was apparently a special sensitivity to the matter of the order on the most holy element of the kohen gadol's garments. Therefore, normally the name of the donor should be under the pasuk, which contains Hashem's Name. (The content does not seem to be adversely affected by having the name of the donor on the bottom. However, there could be exceptions). One would be where the writing is relatively high, and if the pasuk would be on the top, it would be difficult for the chazan to see it. (See Aseh L'cha Rav IV, 44.4, where he explains the importance of this pasuk, which reminds he who is praying that the image of Hashem's Presence should always be before him). ================================ 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