Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Shemot

************************************************************ The 4th volume of B'Mareh Habazak, Eretz Hemdah's responsa to Diaspora rabbis, has just been published. Copies are available at our office or can be sent by mail. Call our office for details. ************************************************************ ************************************************************ This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. ************************************************************ The Making of a King Moshe Rabbeinu certainly had an unusual path to the leadership of the Jewish people. He started out as an Egyptian prince, fled Egypt and continued his life with the Midianites, and only later was sent by Hashem as a messenger of salvation who suddenly arrived on the Israelite scene. What was the significance of Moshe's specific and unusual upbringing? Ibn Ezra (Shemot 2:3) brings two insights into the advantageous elements of Moshe's situation. Firstly, he learned the ways of leadership and self-confidence as a prince in the greatest power of his time and was spared having a spirit broken by the harsh realities of slavery. We see the bravery and self-confidence manifested in the saving of the Jew being beaten by an Egyptian and of the daughters of Yitro at the well. Another advantage was that, having grown up separate from his brothers, he was able to maintain a level of authority over the nation which over-familiarity would have made difficult. One can add that exposure to Bat Paroh and Yitro taught Moshe about the psychological recipe to making great spiritual changes in a short amount of time. As time went on, Moshe would need to educate Bnei Yisrael and facilitate their meteoric rise from a band of slaves to a "kingdom of priests" prepared to receive the Torah. Despite the advantage of Moshe's growing up in non-Jewish surroundings, one Jewish experience which Hashem knew he could not do without was the preliminary development in the embrace of his saintly mother, Yocheved. She provided him not merely with milk. The spiritual basis for all future undertakings was provided by the purity of his mother. Certainly, the prodigious, young Moshe absorbed many spoken and unspoken lessons from this period. Our ability to succeed at certain life challenges and tasks may benefit from our exposure to a variety of outside influences. However, the basic building blocks of our personality must be formed in purity. ******************************************************* Pninat Mishpat - Classical Agunah Issue - Summary We have seen over the last several weeks how the level of direct testimony needed to verify the death of a husband is reduced significantly from the regular two "kosher" witnesses needed in matters of marriage and divorce. This is a special ruling due to the great need of the agunah, the unlikelihood of finding additional witnesses, the assumption that the man is dead, and the wife's realization that she will "pay dearly" if the information she relies upon turns out to be false. We saw that information can come even from relatives of the supposed deceased and even from the wife herself. Even a statement from the deceased himself prior to his death is valid if the information is coupled with a corpse or an equivalent indication of death. We noted that, while classically, witnesses should have seen an identifiable face (within three days of death), other credible forms of identification (which have been vastly expanded by technological advances) have Talmudic precedence. Finally, we learned that in certain, very complicated cases, poskim have worked to be matir wives in cases where no direct testimony on death existed, but a combination of factors provided convincing circumstantial evidence. If you wish to receive the entire series of mini-articles on agunot, contact our office with an e-mail address. We pray that these issues will be positively resolved in existing cases and that Klal Yisrael will be spared new tragic cases. ********************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Does Beit Din Follow Majority of Opinions or Of Wisdom? - Part II (based on Amud Hay'mini, siman 4) We saw last time that there is a problem for junior jurists to argue on the mufla (most revered member) of beit din, and, therefore, we start capital cases from the junior members. Some say that even if the mufla speaks first, the others can argue with him, but they might be reluctant to do so. Others say that the mufla's view overcomes the majority because of his wisdom, while others say that the mufla can force the other dayanim to conform with his opinion. The Mechilta seems to say that these halachot apply to monetary law, but we must say that, according to Tosafot, this is only partially so. The Torah says not to argue on the muflah and also not to change one's opinion and support a position with which he doesn't agree. However, one can say that only the problem of arguing applies to monetary law, but regarding not withholding one's personal opinion, this applies only to capital cases. One can say that after failing to convince the muflah to accept their logic, it is natural for the junior members to go along with his authoritative opinion, just as a minority must sign on to the opinion of the majority. This is apparently the approach of Rav Hai, that when the dayanim are not of the same level, we follow the one "who gives a good reason for his opinion." The term seems strange, because all of the dayanim should be providing rationale. He apparently means that we accept the opinion of the muflah only after it has withstood the (respectful) presentation of contrary opinions. Rav Hai agrees with the simple understanding of following the majority. The muflah cannot outweigh the opinion of the others. Rather, based on the principle of "Lo ta'aneh al rav," the others are expected to retract their opinions on monetary matters in favor of the muflah's. Within Rashi's opinion there is an apparent contradiction, for on the mishna (32a) he implies that they can argue on the muflah. It appears, upon close investigation of Rashi's words, that the issue isn't whether the junior members can argue but when. During deliberations, it would be improper to champion an opposing view to that of the muflah. But when the time comes for the final vote, they are bound to rule according to what their minds tell them. Even during deliberations, it may be possible to suggest alternative viewpoints (according to the simple reading of Tosafot). Regarding capital matters, we start with the junior members out of fear that they might be intimidated from arguing even in a permitted fashion. By monetary matters, we give precedence to the more authoritative and are not overly concerned that the junior members will not express themselves according to their rights. ************************************************************* Ask the Rabbi Question: I thought it was forbidden to transfer ownership between people on Shabbat. Yet, people regularly bring over food when invited to friends' houses. Is that permitted? Answer: In explaining the prohibition of making donations to the Beit Hamikdash on Shabbat and Yom Tov, the gemara (Beitza 37a) says that it is included in the prohibition of commerce on these days. Rashi (ad loc.) cites two reasons for the prohibition of commerce: 1) The navi Yeshaya, taught us to stay away from weekday-like activities and speech on Shabbat; 2) Commerce could prompt one to write documents. Do these concerns apply to giving a present? The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 527) cites the Mordechai that one can transfer ownership of a lulav and etrog on Sukkot to one's friend in order to allow him to fulfill the mitzva. The Beit Yosef was surprised with this reasoning, because if one gives a present by handing it to his friend without a formalistic kinyan sudar, it should be permitted even without there being a mitzvah. Some bring proof to the Beit Yosef's own reasoning (see Beit Meir on Even HaEzer, siman 45). However, the consensus of poskim is like the Mordechai, that even though giving presents is not overly commercial in nature, it is included in the prohibition of commerce except for cases of mitzvah, (Magen Avraham 306:15; Mishna Berurah 306:33). What, then, constitutes a mitzvah? In addition to necessary religious articles like an etrog, one may give and receive presents which are needs of the day (Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:29). Based on this, people may give presents of food when going over to friends if they feel that they will be used to enhance the Shabbat meal (see Shulchan Aruch Harav 306:15 who corroborates). It is proper to make a realistic appraisal if the specific item given is likely to be used on this Shabbat (for example, giving milchig candy when going for lunch on a "short" Shabbat would be problematic). Giving presents to chatanim or bar-mitzvah boys is discussed by poskim (see discussion in Yechave Da'at III, 21). Even when one cannot transfer ownership of an object, one can give it physically on Shabbat in one of two ways: 1) To transfer ownership to the recipient before Shabbat (Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata, ibid.), by buying the object on his behalf or having someone, (preferably outside the giver's family- see details in Shulchan Aruch OC 366:10), pick up the object on his behalf; 2) If the party(ies) have in mind not to affect the transfer of ownership, until after Shabbat. **************************************************************************** ************* 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