Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Pkudei 5763

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Pekudei 4 Adar II 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. =========================================== Creative Obedience Parashat Vayakhel reports, detail by detail, how the workers of the "mishkan project" followed the precise instructions for its construction. Yet the Torah does not use the words, "as Hashem commanded Moshe." In Pekudei, describing the making of the kohanim's garments, the Torah mentions in section after section those very words. Why is there a difference? The second pasuk of our parasha (Shemot 38:22) tells that Betzalel did "all that Hashem commanded Moshe." Rashi picks up on the unnecessarily inclusive word "all," and cites Chazal that Betzalel followed all of the instructions that Hashem gave to Moshe, including a notable one that Moshe had not relayed to him. Namely, Betzalel questioned the logic of building the mishkan's vessels before building the structure, and Moshe praised him for anticipating that which Hashem had told Moshe. The Ramban says that this explains why Vayakhel does not mention that Betzalel followed the instructions, because he actually acted differently from what he was originally told (with permission). Only in reference to the kohanim's garment (in Pekudei) were his actions a direct result of Hashem's instructions that Moshe relayed to him. (This idea may also be hinted to do by the choice of the word "ka'asher" (as), as opposed to "asher" (that)). Why did things work out that Moshe did not tell Betzalel the right thing, which Betzalel then had to figure out himself? The gemara (Ketubot 5a) refers to the mishkan/mikdash as "the work of man's hands," and says that it is even greater than Hashem's creation of the world. Certainly, the engineering and artistic work related to the mishkan cannot be mentioned in the same breath with the creation of the entire universe. In fact "the work of man's hands" probably does not refer to handiwork at all, but to the initiative and spiritual effort involved. Is initiative important? On one hand, man has no right to make up his own blueprint for the service of Hashem and the construction of His temple (see Divrei Hayamim I 28:19). On the other hand, the more creativity man puts into the service of Hashem and sacred projects such as the mishkan, the greater his part in the final result. In our parasha, we have a mix which enables the best of both worlds. Betzalel did not close his mind when receiving the commandments, but searched to do things in the best possible way. On the other hand, he had to check with Moshe to see if his ideas fit into the Divine plan, which they did. The achievement of his "creative obedience" enabled the mishkan to be not only a spiritual venue for mankind, but the great "work of man's hands" that it was. We sometimes feel sandwiched between the approach that we must be obedient in a closed-minded manner and the approach that man knows best what is good and worthwhile and need not heed the Divine word (Heaven forbid). The challenge is to be creative in this world and yet make sure that our creativity is within the confines of "all that Hashem commanded Moshe." ============================================== P'ninat Mishpat - Sh'vuot (Oaths)- Part I- Introduction The institution of sh'vuot (oaths) is a major one in halachic literature, but in modern practice, it is rarely implemented. There is a practice to avoid administrating sh'vuot at almost all cost. Rather, we replace the sh'vua with payment of a certain percentage of the money being argued about. However, the topic is still central to Choshen Mishpat, and we should discuss it. We will discuss the sh'vuot that beit din administers (shvuot hadayanim). There are also oaths that a person makes of his own volition, which may require him to do something or refrain from something. However, those are related to the laws of Yoreh Deah, dealing with "ritual law," and not to Choshen Mishpat and the functioning of batei din. The purpose of a sh'vua in beit din is to provide a degree of proof to one's claim, by his preparedness to swear, before accepting the claim. Sh'vuot break up into a few different categories. There is a distinction in severity, and somewhat in implementation, between Torah obligated and rabbinically obligated sh'vuot. The Torah mentions sh'vuot in two contexts and hints at them in a third context. The Torah says (Shemot 22:7,10) that when one watches an object for his friend and something happens to the object, he must swear that what happened is something for which he is not responsible. (What that is depends on the type of watchman he was). A second case is one who admits part of his friend's claim but denies the rest (ibid.:8). A third case is when one witness testifies that someone owes money, which requires the defendant to swear to counteract the testimony. This is implied from the pasuk that only two witnesses are sufficient to extract money (Devarim 19:15), implying that one witness would have some impact, namely to require an oath (Sh'vuot 41a). The common denominator between these three cases is that the defendant is the one to swear in order to exempt himself from payment (Sh'vuot 44b). ============================================= Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Compromises in Religious Legislation- part III (from Amud Hay'mini, siman 11) [We have seen that one can be given over from a group to be killed or defiled in order to save the whole group from the same fate if he or she was chosen by the oppressors. This is so when the situation doesn't require kiddush Hashem to prevent the act of handing over from weakening Jewish resolve and unity.] The idea that the appropriateness of giving up one life to save the masses depends on the practical ramifications of the decision explains a couple of difficult gemarot. The Rambam and others forbid one to give up his life for kiddush Hashem when he is not required to do so. On the other hand, the gemara (Bava Batra 10b) is strong in its praise of the martyrs of Lod, who falsely "admitted" committing a murder in order to save an entire Jewish community from death for that crime. How can it be praiseworthy for them to give up their lives in that way if the members of that community would have had no right to give them over? According to what we have said the explanation is clear. The reason that the group cannot hand one over is that when one is chosen to be killed, the whole group is thrust into a deadly struggle, one against the other, for survival. However, if a person picks himself out in an act of self-sacrifice to save the group, there are positive ramifications, including saving lives and strengthening of the feeling of unity within the group. We now can understand an enigma regarding the prohibition to aid and encourage the doing of an aveira. On one hand, the prohibition of aiding in an aveira which would be committed with or without his involvement is only rabbinic. On the other hand, the gemara (Nedarim 22a) talks with extreme severity on the matter in the following case. Ulla travelled to Eretz Yisrael with two men. One killed the other and then turned to Ulla to ask him if he had done well. Ulla said that what he had done was good. Upon arrival, Ulla asked R. Yochanan if he had improperly "strengthened the hand of a sinner." R. Yochanan replied that he had acted to save his life. Why was Ulla unsure whether he had done the right thing, as he was well aware that his motivation had been to save his life? Ulla was not as afraid of the technical aspects of aiding someone in his transgression as he was by the chillul Hashem of the matter. He was aware that in addition to standard chillul Hashem, which all Jews are commanded to avoid, there is an element which depends on the stature of the person (see Yoma 86a). This requires talmidei chachamim to be more careful than others. For this reason, the Nimukei Yosef says that the Rambam (see above) will agree that a righteous man may give his life to refuse doing an aveira in a case where others would not be required, if he sees a need to strenghten, not weaken, others in their resolve to keep the mitzvot. Ulla was, thus, afraid that it was improper to show support for the murderer even to save his life because of the chillul Hashem involved. R. Yochanan responded that it was clear from the circumstances of Ulla's actions that there was no moral support for the murderer and that he acted only to save his life. It needs to be seen whether only actions done under fear of death lose the status of chillul Hashem, or whether any time that it is clear that "support" for those who sin is just because of pressure, the chillul Hashem element is missing. In the absence of chillul Hashem, we are left to deal with the more technical issues of when the rabbinic law not to aid in acts of sin applies. [We will next apply the analysis to the issue of religious legislation.] Ask the Rabbi Question: I will be on the island of Maui (Hawaii) on Shabbat. Do I need an eiruv in order to carry? (Maui is an island, with a population of over 100,000, that is not connected by bridge to any other land). Answer: In order to carry in an area, there firstly need to be walls (physical or halachic, i.e. the eiruv) surrounding one on all sides. I understand the question, that the fact that Maui is an island might make it considered surrounded by walls. The gemara (Eiruvin 22b) raises the question that there should be no reshut harabim (public domain) in the world, because, looking far enough to each side, every place is surrounded by ocean. We should point out that a body of water is not in and of itself like a wall, but the steep incline that certainly exists underwater is considered a wall, even though it is covered over by water (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 363: 29 and Mishna Berura, ad loc.). The gemara, which rejects this possibility, does not delineate why and when the oceans do not preclude the status of reshut harabim. Several rishonim point out that natural walls are less significant than man-made walls. Tosafot (Eiruvin, ibid.) says that natural walls are uprooted by the movement of all the masses of people within these distant walls. The Ritva (ibid.) says that to be considered surrounded by walls, the walls need to be close enough that a person feels contained by them. Either way, in Maui, which has over 100,000 inhabitants and, while seeming small on the globe, has an area of approximately 2,000 sq. kilometers, the natural walls of the shore do not count. There are another few rabbinic level laws which would require one to have an eiruv. The walls must not have gaps of more than ten amot between them, which is a problem, because the incline of the ocean floor is probably not uniform. The area must be enclosed at least partially by man-made walls that were built specifically for the purpose of people living within. These sections of the wall must connect to the wall that surrounds on all sides (see Shulchan Aruch OC 358). There cannot be large areas of agricultural or uninhabitable areas within the area (ibid.). Even if the walls were valid, there is still a need for the second part of the eiruv, which is the box of matzot which is acquired on behalf of all the Jewish inhabitants (OC 266). There also needs to be a renting of permission for Jews to carry from an authorized representative of the non-Jewish inhabitants (OC 382). This needs to be done by an experienced rabbi. It is worthwhile to check if there is a small Jewish community, with, if not a small eiruv, at least other important religious services. ========================================== Hemdat Yamim is published weekly in conjunction with Gemara Berura. 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