Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Pesach

Dear Friends, Hemdat Yamim Pesach 19 Nissan 5764 **************************************** This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m., Yitzchak Eliezer Ben Avraham Mordechai Jacobson 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. *************************************************************************************************************************** Seeing Hashem's Face Harav Yosef Carmel Chazal instituted that we should read on Chol Hamoed Pesach from a portion of Parashat Ki Tisa, starting with the section that deals with the aftermath of the chet haegel (sin of the Golden Calf). Moshe asked that Hashem accompany Bnei Yisrael Himself and also that He reveal Himself to Moshe. Hashem agreed to accompany Bnei Yisrael, but, in regard to the second request, Hashem said that Moshe could only view "Hashem's Back" not "His Face" (see Shemot 33:12-23). After Hashem's placing "His Hand" over Moshe, who was in a crevice in the rocks, and teaching him the 13 Divine Attributes, Moshe again requested: "If I have found favor in Your Eyes, Hashem, let Hashem "walk" among us" (ibid. 34:9). At that point Hashem renewed his covenant with Bnei Yisrael and told them that He would give them control over the Land of the Seven Nations, which would become Eretz Yisrael. At the same time, Hashem also warned Bnei Yisrael again not to learn from the practices of those nations and to stay away from idol worship and making molten gods. They were told that the consequences would be severe if they failed to keep to their side of the agreement (ibid. 10-17). The context of this warning is very understandable, as Bnei Yisrael had just been guilty of making a god of gold. Thus, Hashem had to reiterate and stress that the problem would arise again in full force when Bnei Yisrael would enter the Land and be exposed to the dangerous, local practices. What is more difficult to understand is the context of the immediately subsequent topic. The Torah goes into the matter of the three regalim (festivals), during which Bnei Yisrael were to go up to celebrate and serve Hashem at the religious center of the nation, the Mishkan and, later, the Beit Hamikdash (ibid. 34:18-26). What is the connection between the aftermath of the chet haegel and the regalim? And what need is there to discuss the regalim since the Torah said just about the same thing in Parashat Mishpatim? It is possible that the key to the reference to the regalim is contained in the phrase of "lo yeira'u panay reikam" (they shall not see My Face empty-handed). What is this concept of seeing "Hashem's Face," which is mentioned prominently in the section of the regalim more than once? The answer is that Hashem's refusal to show His Face after the chet haegel would be relaxed, and Bnei Yisrael would be able to and be expected to go to see It in Yerushalayim during the festivals. These aliyot laregel, then, would serve as atonement for the chet haegel. May we merit that we should soon be able to fulfill this special mitzva and have the special opportunity to encounter "Hashem's Face" in the near future. ************************************************************************************************************************ P'ninat Mishpat – Chametz and Davar Hagorem L'mamon It is an enjoyable challenge, worthy of the commandment to find matters of pleasure on the chagim, to try to connect various areas of halacha to the mitzvot of the day. We will take this opportunity to find connection between the matter of chametz and the topic from Choshen Mishpat of davar hagorem l'mamon (=dhlm). Dhlm describes a case where one does not own a given object, but it is worth money to him. The question then is whether that relationship to the object is a halachically significant one, giving the person various rights and/or obligations in reference to it as if he were an owner, or not. Following are two Talmudic applications of this concept in regard to chametz. The gemara (Pesachim 5b) brings the halacha that if one is watching chametz for a non-Jew, and he is obligated to pay for the chametz if it gets lost or stolen, then he is required to remove the chametz from his ownership before Pesach. The gemara comments that this halacha is understandable if we assume that dhlm is like money. Then we would say that the fact that the existence of the chametz exempts him from paying for its disappearance makes him considered like an owner, who must remove his chametz before Pesach. If one posits that dhlm is not like money, then the explanation of the aforementioned halacha is that the pasuk of "lo yimatzei (the chametz should not be found)" teaches us that even a flimsy connection to the chametz makes a person responsible for it. The gemara (Bava Kama 98b) says that if one steals chametz before Pesach and it is in his possession during Pesach, without being sold or burned before Pesach, then he is able to return the chametz after Pesach and say that he is giving back the same physical object that he took. What, then, happens if a third party burns the chametz after Pesach, when there is no longer a mitzva to do so? The gemara says that it depends what one holds on the question of dhlm. If dhlm is like money, then the third party has destroyed something that relates to the thief and is worth money to him, and the third party must pay the thief for damages. If dhlm is not like money, then the thief is not connected enough to the chametz he stole to demand damages on it. The halacha is that dhlm is not considered like money (Rambam, G'neiva 2:6). ********************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Drasha for Pesach - 5713 (based on Drashot Liy'mei Hapesach, pp. 102-104) When Avraham questioned the tidings that his offspring would inherit the land to which Hashem brought him, it was not out of doubt that Hashem could follow through on His promise. Rather, he had difficulty seeing how his offspring could maintain the Land with the prospect of an independent state that they would have to control. The problem would not be so much the physical challenges, but the ability to integrate a life of Torah and spirituality with the practical considerations of statehood. Is it not easier to live a Torah life in the Diaspora, where agriculture is in the hands of non-Jews and the Jews are involved in "easy and clean professions"? How can one maintain an army and also keep up the ideal Torah education we strive for? Is it possible to have governmental responsibilities and not have secularism pervade them? We have a few examples in our early history where our forefathers promoted the thesis that the spiritual and physical pursuits cannot be jointly held. Yitzchak did not think that Yaakov could be entrusted with the physical blessings and keep up his spiritual level, which was to be his legacy. He wanted to separate the sectors and entrust the physical one to Eisav and the spiritual to Yaakov. But that was not the Divine Will, and Yaakov received both blessings. When Yaakov saw in his dream angels, representing the nations of the world, going up and down, he was afraid. Because he was afraid to take on the challenge of standing up to Eisav, he ran to exile (see Hoshea 12:13). But he found that in exile it was not any easier to raise his family, and he returned. How did Bnei Yisrael's second exile come about? It started with the brothers' jealousy toward Yosef. Yosef was the ben z'kunim, who sat and learned Torah with his father. But he was also talented in statesmanship, as would be so apparent later. When the brothers became aware that he was planning to rule over them, they objected. How could the one who was to be dedicated to the realm of Torah try to incorporate with that statesmanship and leadership in the physical world? They felt he was haughtily overstepping his bounds, and, as a result of their reaction, the exile in Egypt came about. What messages are we left with from that exile's end? The mistake of thinking that things are better when non-Jews run the country was uncovered. It is impossible to maintain either a proper physical or spiritual existence among the nations. These two ideas are symbolized in the mitzvot of seder night. The maror reminds us that in Egypt we were subjugated to tremendous, physical hardships. The matza reminds us that we were entrenched in a dangerous atmosphere of spiritual impurity and needed to be extricated from there without waiting even a moment longer. The third lesson of the night is connected to the Korban Pesach, that reminds us that Hashem was directly involved in our liberation (and passed over- pasach- our houses). Bnei Yisrael's liberation is a Divine process and we must, therefore, answer His call and not try to avoid it. Rabban Gamlilel teaches us that without incorporating these three elements of the mitzvot of the day we do not fulfill our obligation on Pesach. ************************************************************************************************************************* Ask the Rabbi Question: May I (an Ashkenazi) eat on Pesach at the house of a Sephardi friend food that was cooked in pots that he uses to cook kitniyot? If so, why? (They have assured me that all ingredients will be kitniyot free.) Answer: The various questions of kitniyot on Pesach seem to have become so divisive over the last period of time that one can barely open his mouth on the topic without fear of attack or offending someone. However, the answer to this question should be acceptable to all combatants on the topic. The Terumat Hadeshen (one of the pillars of early Ashkenazic p'sak) (Responsa 113) says that although we are strict not to eat kitniyot, if a grain of kitniyot falls into a pot on Pesach, we are not so strict as to forbid the food, for the prohibition on a mixture containing any amount (mashehu) of chametz on Pesach does not apply to kitniyot. The Rama (Orach Chayim 453:1) concurs that if kitniyot fall into a pot we do not forbid the contents of the pot. (If one can find the kitniyot they must be removed- Mishna Berura ad loc.:8). The Terumat Hadeshen apparently permits the food in the pot only when there is a tiny amount, which would be batel (nullified) by standard food prohibitions, other than chametz on Pesach. However, most poskim understand that the Rama includes in his leniency any case where the kitniyot is a minority (Pri Chadash :1; Chuk Yaakov :5; Mishna Berura :9; see Bemareh Habazak IV, 51). Thus, while we never know exactly how much flavor comes out of the walls of a pot which has absorbed non-kosher food, we know that there will not be a majority of kitniyot in the "kosher for Ashkenazim" food that is cooked in the pots in question. One might want to claim that our case is more severe than that which the Rama discussed, because here one is purposely setting up the situation where he will rely on the fact that the minority kitniyot will be batel. (There, the grain fell in.) There is much to say about this, but we will concentrate on the question at hand, dealing with utensils, not b'en (actual pieces or juices of a forbidden object that are in the food directly, not expelled from the walls of the pot). We have precedents of foods that are permitted by certain communities and forbidden by others. (Regarding kitniyot, it is quite clear that the stringency, while binding on Ashkenzaic communities, is not something that is forbidden on its own merits, but based on custom- see Beit Yosef, OC 453). The Rama (Yoreh Deah 64:9) discusses the custom of the Jews of the Rhine area to eat a certain type of animal fat that most other Jewish communities felt was forbidden. He rules that although members of other communities should not eat from this fat or from a food that contains 1/60th of it, these others may use the utensils that this fat was cooked in. From here we see that there is more room to allow cooking in the utensils of those who are more lenient than others on a certain matter than to eat from a food that contains a significant minority of such questionable food. As we have already seen, most poskim permit eating a food that has in it a significant minority of kitniyot. It is also quite clear that the likelihood of a serious prohibition is stronger by the fat than by kitniyot. Thus, it follows that it is permitted according to the Rama (who is the decisor for the Ashkenazi custom on kitniyot) to eat from "kitniyot pots." See also Yechave Da'at V, 32, who comes to this conclusion after presenting several more precedents. Although stringency on Pesach has positive elements and times exist when one has cause to consider where he should be eating, it is neither healthy nor halachically warranted in our case to preclude such a large group of Jews from hosting another large group (see Rashi, Yevamot 88a). 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