Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Shmini

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Shemini 26 Nisan 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. *************************************************************************************************************************** When to Put the Issues on the Table (or the Altar) Our parasha begins with a description of the korbanot that begin the service of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Aharon brought an egel (calf) as a chatat (sin offering) for himself, whereas, on Bnei Yisrael's behalf, he brought a sair (goat) for a chatat and an egel as an olah (burnt offering) (Vayikra 9:3). What was the significance of these korbanot? The Sifra (ad loc.) said that Aharon required atonement for his participation in the sin of the Golden Calf (chet ha'egel), while Bnei Yisrael needed not only atonement for the chet ha'egel but also a goat for the selling of Yosef by their forefathers. (The brothers had slaughtered a goat to disguise their crime and claimed that Yosef had been killed by a wild animal). The commentaries make much of the connection between these two historic sins and the status of Bnei Yisrael in comparison to Aharon. Rabbeinu Bachyei points out that Aharon brought a chatat for his involvement in the chet ha'egel because that is the korban one brings when he violates a serious sin without foreknowledge of sin. Indeed, Aharon felt he had to deal with a no-win situation and had no idea what the results of his participation would be. The olah, on the other hand, is for sins of the heart, including certain premeditated sins (see Ramban on Vayikra 1:4). Thus, it was appropriate for Bnei Yisrael's role in chet ha'egel. But the question still begs. Even if these elements of atonement were necessary, it seems a little inappropriate that at the grand opening of the Mishkan, such prominent, public attention was given to some of the most depressing moments in our history. One can answer that there was no choice but to receive atonement before commencing with the service, but it still seems that something could have been arranged earlier or later. Upon second thought, we can find a very positive message in the korbanot in question. When one has a fragile relationship with an associate, it is prudent to keep points of tension or contention under wraps. Otherwise, the entire relationship could be endangered. But a strong relationship can withstand bumps on the road. Not only is it possible to survive the airing of issues, but it is, at times, wise to do so and clear the air. Hashem was informing B'nei Yisrael that as serious as the selling of Yosef and the chet ha'egel were, He still loved them enough to maintain His relationship with them. Additionally, with the opening of the Mishkan, they would have an effective, reliable system of making amends for even serious shortcomings. The instruction to make amends sent home the message that indeed there was an opportunity to do so. While we do not presently have the opportunity to use korbanot to further our relationship with Hashem, we can and should use the gift of mitzvot and tefilla to do so. ************************************************************************************************************************* P'ninat Mishpat – Firing a Teacher who is Unable to Control his Class (excerpts from Piskei Din Rabbaniim, vol. XIV, pp.69-77) Case: A man was hired by a yeshiva for teenagers to teach for the first time. He began the school year, but after a matter of days, it became clear to the administration that he was unable to maintain order in the classroom, and so he was fired. The teacher now demands his salary for the entire year that he was supposed to have worked. Ruling: The gemara (Bava Batra 21a) brings two opinions whether a Torah teacher may be removed when a more effective one is found. The argument hinges on which possibility fosters better teaching standards. The Rosh and Shulchan Aruch (YD 245:18) accept the opinion of R. Dimi that he can be replaced. It is, therefore, difficult to explain the Rosh's (Shut 104:4) ruling that a teacher cannot be removed during the time that he was appointed for. A few distinctions are given to reconcile the apparent contradiction. 1) R. Dimi only said that the teacher can be removed and cannot make a claim on his position of teaching, but monetarily he must be compensated for the entire time for which he was hired. 2) The only time that R. Dimi allowed the teacher to be fired is when he was not hired for a specific amount of time. 3) Aruch Hashulchan (YD 245:18)- Just as a worker can interrupt his work when he desires, so may an employer terminate the employment, just that payment for work done is calculated in a way that is detrimental to the employer who terminates the work. In our case, no set time was set for the teacher's employment. Although the two sides signed a piece of paper titled, "Obligations and Rights of Teachers for the School Year 5742," that does not mean that his job was assured for the entire time. Rather, it spells out what the conditions are as long as the position continues. (Par. 2 also states that the teacher is responsible to control his class.) Since this was the young man's first teaching position, it is unlikely that the administration would give him an unconditional obligation for a full year, as many first time teachers fail. Although the Teacher's Union reported that there is a nationwide practice not to fire teachers in the middle of the year, there are a few reasons why that will not create a minhag hamedina (local practice) in this case. Firstly, that applies only to teachers with tenure. Secondly, that agreement is an informal one between the Teacher's Union and the public school system and likely does not apply to private schools like the one in question. There was a difference of opinion among the dayanim whether the inability of the teacher to control the class in his few days on the job constitutes a p'shiya, a general inability to perform the job. One dayan pointed out that many first time teachers had initial difficulty in disciplining, but learned how to do so as they proceeded. Given that they were aware that he was new, initial difficulties should not be a surprise. Another dayan countered that inability to control a class causes as much damage as not knowing the material to be taught and is grounds for removal. All dayanim agreed that the teacher could be removed, and the ruling was to pay him only for the days worked and another week in lieu of proper, advance warning. ************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Reward and Punishment- part I (based on Perakim B'Machshevet Yisrael, pg. 320-2) There are two, basic questions that anyone dealing with the question of Divine reward and punishment has to deal with: 1) Since man's actions would seem to be of little consequence to Hashem, what is the point of His rewarding or punishing his deeds? 2) What is the nature and content of the two types of reward and punishment, those found in the Torah, which refer primarily to this world, and those relayed to us through Chazal's tradition, which relate to the world to come? The Rambam removes the concept of reward and punishment from its normal meaning. They are not something that one receives. Rather reward is a direct function of a person's spiritual accomplishments, which find expression by acquiring for him eternity for the soul. Punishment is a natural result of man's actions, as a non-meritorious person does not develop within himself the spirituality which would elevate him above the animal kingdom, and his soul is cut off and lost along with his body. By delving into muskalot (intellectual/spiritual thoughts), which are related to the Divine, the human soul turns into something more actual and turns the person into a spiritual entity that does not require a body to exist. When the person dies, his soul gains the ability to exist independently after breaking free from its physical connections. The reward in the world to come is the spiritual life of grasping the Divine without separations. When a person's spiritual side is not developed or is destroyed by such sins as those that bear the punishment of karet (being cut off), the soul remains bound to the body. As such, when the body losses life, so does the soul. According to this approach, we can understand how the world to come is nothing but a world of the spirits, whose true description no man, who is confined to a body, can fully grasp. Therefore, any descriptions in Chazal that seem to describe physical reality in the world to come are merely parables, whose job is to encourage man to act righteously. This is needed because spiritual descriptions will not relate to man in such a way that will give him the impetus to act properly. The "reward and punishment" that is mentioned in the Torah as existing in this world are not really true reward and punishment, which are only hinted at. Rather, they are an assurance that Hashem will provide help in enabling man the conditions to act upon his good will without the impediments that those who desire to perform misdeeds encounter. According to the Rambam, the full level of Divine Providence in this world that is necessary to bring the type of "reward" that aids leading a life of mitzvot is the lot only of the chosen nation. In general, the laws of nature should hold true without distinction between the deeds of the righteous and the wicked. Providence is a direct result of connectedness to the Divine, spiritual force which gives life to all of the worlds. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi adds an additional outlook on reward and punishment in this world. He says that its importance is less in regard to the outcomes of the reward and punishment than to the fact that they serve as a sign of Divine Providence. In other words, the correlation between a person's actions and his lot can serve as proof of the connection between man and his Creator.. ************************************************************************************************************************* Ask the Rabbi Question: This sounds like a crazy question, but what is the halachic ruling on one who counts sefirat haomer in a base other than the standard, decimal system? In other words, could he say, "Today is 1101 in base 2" on day 13. Answer: From a practical perspective, this does seem like a crazy question, but trying to answer it gives us the opportunity to more clearly define how one performs the mitzva of counting. When it might be practical is when one is asked the day of the omer before fulfilling his mitzva. Instead of telling what the count was yesterday, one might want to answer with the day's count in a different base if that is not a valid way of counting (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 489:4). One can demonstrate from the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) that one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefirat haomer by stating information that makes it clear what day of the omer it is. Otherwise, saying yesterday's date would be like saying today's date. Thus, one has to say something relatively direct about the number that corresponds to the day in the omer. But how formal does it have to be? Firstly, the poskim understand as a simple matter that one can do sefirat haomer in any language he understands (Magen Avraham 489:2) and some say that one does not fulfill the mitzva if he does not understand, even in Hebrew (ibid.). So one can say that the important thing is getting the point across in reference to the day's count. If so, what difference does it make if it is in done in a different language or in binary. In fact, many Acharonim (see Sha'arei Teshuva 489:6; Biur Halacha, on 489:1; Kaf Hachayim 489:24) dispute or have doubt as to whether or not one fulfills the mitzva by saying the number in gematria form (e.g. "yud gimmel" for 13). One might claim that the answer to your question depends on that dispute, as all numerical systems are probably the same. Furthermore, the Ba'er Heitev (:6) says that one fulfills the mitzva by saying "arbaim chaser echad (40 minus 1)" for the 39th day, dipping further into arithmetic computations. However, there is great logic to distinguish between your case and the aforementioned. It is true that our definition of what a number is may be broad enough to include gematria. But gematria is at least a normal way for many people to express numbers. In Talmudic Hebrew, "40 minus 1" is also a catch phrase for 39 (see Shabbat 73a). (One can, therefore, take issue on the B'er Moshe (III, 82) who simply equates "5 minus 1" to "40 minus 1."). In contrast, talking in binary is not normal in any language (if one, properly, excludes computer languages). The matter may depend on the careful reading of earlier sources. The Tur (OC 489) cites the Ra'avyah's opinion that when one is in between multiples of 7 days he doesn't say the number of days but, for example, "a week and 6 days" for 13. A week is an accepted way of saying 7 days and it seems to be equivalent to the gematria case. Yet, the Tur feels compelled to explain that this is valid because on day #7, he said, "7 days, which is a week." The Chok Yaakov (489:8) says, in fact, that if on day #7 one says just "a week" the Ra'avyah agrees that he does not fulfill the mitzva. Only after formally stating in our counting that 7 days is equivalent to a week are they interchangeable. (Some argue on the Chok Yaakov and one can also say that the Tur's explanation is needed only to explains why the Ra'avyah's system is legitimate l'chatchila, whereas, you are likely interested in the ruling, b'dieved). In the final analysis, if counting in gematria is invalid, then bases other than decimal are certainly invalid. If one accepts gematria, then there is a possibility to discuss binary. However, logic still dictates that one must express the count in a numerical system which is readily used in the language one is using. 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