Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Shmot 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Shemot 23 Tevet 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. *************************************************************************************************************************** Social Justice Starts (and Ends) at Home Much has been said and written about Moshe's concern for the welfare of the downtrodden as an important element toward his choice as the leader of Bnei Yisrael, sent by Hashem to liberate them from slavery. It is important to note not only the fact that he came time and again to the rescue of others but also the progression in the profile of each act. The Chatam Sofer alludes to the progression of Moshe's activities. First, he defended one of his brethren from a foreign oppressor. Once he felt as a full-fledged member of Bnei Yisrael (as the pasuk mentions, despite his upbringing as a member of the Egyptian aristocracy), he was reacting to a relatively clear cut injustice. Next, he stepped in where one Jew was attacking another. Here, the oppressed was no closer to him than the attacker. But he still had an interest, and perhaps a double interest, in stopping the altercation. Firstly, one of his clan was about to be hurt. Secondly, the pasuk implies that he was as troubled by the deteriorated moral level of the offender as he was by the prospect of the potential victim's getting injured. Finally, Moshe took on a band of foreign shepherds who were causing problems to a group of foreign girls. Here, he seemingly did not have any personal reasons to take a stand, yet he did. According to this presentation, it appears that the highest act of righteousness was that in which he saved the Midianite girls. If so, we should expect that Moshe would go on to a career of human rights activism, saving poor and lowly citizens and nations from their oppressors all over the world. Yet, we don't find Moshe becoming a universalistic savior. Rather, his acts of leadership and pursuit of justice were reserved for the members of his own people. So why is there a need to stress his progression toward concern for people unrelated to him? It is a greater mitzva, in certain respects, to do charity at home. Indeed, halacha requires that one should give priority to charity given to relatives and neighbors before people who are distant (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 251:3). On the other hand, if one is kind only to those close to him, it is a possible sign that he is not really a kind person. Rather, he desires that things should be good for him, and he sees those who surround him as an extension of himself. Although it is right for someone to fight off the attackers of those close to him, not everybody who does so is altruistic. Some may just be hateful people who enjoy joining a fight against outsiders. Moshe's instinct to defend his fellow Jew was a sign of love for his fellow Jew, not hatred of Egyptians. He was able to demonstrate that point and train himself by continuing to care for his fellow man in situations that weren't "us against them." He demonstrated it further by getting involved in fights that had nothing to do with him. Then it was clear that Moshe would be a leader who would stand up for his whole flock, irrespective of tribal or political affiliation. Hashem then instructed him to take the sterling, personal qualities he had honed and apply them at home, in service of his own nation. ************************************************************************************************************************* P'ninat Mishpat – Compensation for One Who Bought a House that was Smaller than Listed (based on Piskei Din - Rabbinical Court of Yerushalayim - vol. II, pp.101-3) Case: Reuven sold an apartment to Shimon for a given price. In the contract, it says that Shimon inspected the apartment and found that it suited his needs and that he checked the Land Registry to see that there were no outstanding legal issues connected to it. Shimon now complains that he bought the apartment at the agreed price because of its total area, as spelled out in the Land Registry. Only after buying the apartment did Shimon calculate that the listed area of the apartment was overestimated by 40 sq. meters. He, thus, demands that the amount of money he overpaid should be returned. Ruling: The mishna (Bava Batra 103b) says that if one sells his friend a field, which he stipulates is the size of a beit koor, and it is less than that, the seller must return the difference in value between a field the size of a beit koor and this one. Different explanations are given as to why the sale is valid despite the misrepresentation of its size. The Magid Mishna (on the Rambam, Mechira 28:5) offers one explanation that since the overpricing does not relate to the estimation of the field's monetary value, the sale stands, while the extra payment is returned. The Magid Mishna does bring an opinion that in this case, that the inaccuracy is based on an objective scale such as measure, the buyer can nullify the sale, and here we are talking about a case where he waived his right but demanded to be compensated for overpaying. In theory, our case might have been compared to that of the mishna, enabling Shimon to make a good claim that Reuven should return money. Had Reuven presented the sale as that of a sale of a plot or an apartment of x meters and it turned out to be 40 meters less, then it seems that he would have a claim. But Reuven never made an issue of the exaggerated size. Rather, it was Shimon who said that he was relying on information that he saw himself at the Land Registry. It is also pertinent that in the contract and in the attached sketching of the apartment, no mention is made of the total area of the apartment, making it difficult to claim that the price was based on a mistaken appraisal. [Editor's note- Review of the Land Registry file is usually done after negotiations are more or less complete and are intended to avoid legal complications, not in order to determine the apartment's value. Also, in contrast to a field, where the size is the major factor in setting the price, an apartment's value is much more dependent upon how that space is arranged into useful living quarters for the buyers. Thus, even if the area had been stressed in the negotiations and money would have to be returned, it probably should not have been estimated proportionally.] ************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Farewell Address to K'far Haroeh (5726) - Part II (from Gaon Batorah U'vamidot, pp. 301-304) [Last time we brought Rav Yisraeli's opening comments about the need for the community of K'far Haroeh to continue with its philosophy that mundane activities must be done under the influence of the sacred.] I was drawn to K'far Haroeh by its members' desire to build a special type of community without being overly driven by materialistic concerns. I felt comfortable coming to play my role as rav with a feeling of "the two walked together" [based on Bereishit 22:6]. There was no feeling of competing for stature, but there was a desire to work together. The rabbinate deals with one realm, and the rav is expected to fill in that which the member does not have the opportunity to do. While the rav's "profession" is Torah, the member of the moshav can only "steal time" from his schedule to set aside for Torah study. The goal was that there should not be an intrinsic separation between the rav and the community, just a distribution of responsibilities, with all progressing together toward the Kingdom of David, the anointed one. This idea of "the two walked together" was the guiding principle between the generations of our forefathers. Avraham had already gone through several trying tests of his faith, and could claim to his credit an impressive list of accomplishments. Akeidat Yitzchak, which he was in the process of successfully carrying out, was the final one. Yitzchak was, at that point, a young sapling who had just begun to be tested and was not yet an expert in the art of spiritual struggle. Yet Avraham did not boast his accomplishments to his son. He shared the same trepidation as Yitzchak on the way to his first, great trial. Indeed, they walked together as one. One should never live on the laurels of past accomplishments, because that is a sign that the person's voyage in life has been completed. This world is one of walking and progressing. Avraham acted as if he had not yet done a thing. In that atmosphere, Yitzchak was able to feel more confident of his ability to walk together with his illustrious father. If today's youth acts with some suspicion toward adults it is perhaps because their elders seem to always be saying, "We did. We built...". This over-reliance on past accomplishments is what distances the hearts of sons from their fathers. The Rebbe from Kutz had an idiom based on the liturgical phrase, "For You, Hashem, remember everything that has been forgotten." He said that if a person does something wrong and remembers with regret what he did, then Hashem will agree to forget it. If a person does something good and does not dwell on it, then Hashem will dwell on it. But if a person does something good and remembers it to his own credit, then Hashem will forget it. It is primarily the forgotten things that Hashem remembers. Baruch Hashem, we, at K'far Haroeh, have accomplished with Hashem's help. We have established things and have withstood challenges. But this just makes us obligated to reinvigorate ourselves toward the future. We remember the past not to be boastful but to remember how to succeed now. Let us ask ourselves: if there was once a spirit of pioneering, why can't we replicate it now? Why shouldn't we be able to live simply in the material realm or dance without worrying about what tomorrow will bring, as we did when we started out? Certainly, the personal strength that enabled us to act in that way is still within us. We need only to reactivate it. [We conclude next week.] *************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: May I give my baby a rattle to play with on Shabbat? Answer: We will start with an assumption that it is forbidden for an adult to use an instrument such as a rattle that is used to make noise and then see what the halacha is in regard to a baby. Before we proceed we also need to determine the nature of the prohibition for adults, as this may affect the answer to your question. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 338:1) forbids use of musical instruments on Shabbat. The Rama (ad loc.) claims that this prohibition applies to all instruments that are intended for making noise, not necessarily music. The Biur Halacha (ad loc.) accepts this more stringent opinion and brings those who explain that this type of noise making is prohibited because it is a weekday-like activity. Clearly, according to all opinions, any prohibition in this matter is at most rabbinic. Is it permitted to let babies perform rabbinic prohibitions? Certainly, it is permitted to allow a baby, who is too young to understand the significance of his actions, to violate Shabbat or other prohibitions. (Regarding older children, see Orach Chayim 343). However, it is forbidden to "feed" prohibited things to children of any age (Yevamot 114a), and this is likely forbidden even from the Torah (see Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 343). This applies to all types of Torah prohibitions, whether or not related to food, and it is forbidden even to tell children to perform prohibitions, even without actually feeding (Mishna Berura 343: 1,5). However, the Ran (on the Rif, Yoma 1a) says that it is permitted to give children things which are prohibited only rabbinically when it is done for the welfare of the child. For that reason, he explains, the gemara (Yoma 78b) permits washing a child on Yom Kippur. Thus, as many babies enjoy and, thus, benefit from a rattle, the Ran would permit giving it to them on Shabbat. However, it is not altogether clear to what extent we accept the opinion of the Ran, as the Shulchan Aruch appears not to, and the matter may depend on how acute or mitzva-related the need is (see Biur Halacha, 343:1). Usually, rattles are not needed so acutely by babies, except those who are significantly calmed by them. However, if we put the two issues that we have discussed together, it is logical to be lenient. After all, we saw that a rattle used to make noise, not music, is permitted even for adults according to the Shulchan Aruch. Even if it is forbidden, it is likely only because it is a mundane activity, a category of prohibition which likely does not apply to the activities of an infant. For this reason, the Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata (16:3) permits giving a rattle to a baby (see also Shema Beni, siman 34). On the other hand, he does not allow the adult to shake the rattle for the infant unless the baby is very upset and the rattle calms him, in which case he permits shaking in an unusual manner (ibid. and footnote 11). The adult should hand it to the baby gently without shaking it (faint scratching sounds inside the rattle are not considered noise making). We should note that some do prohibit giving a rattle to a baby on Shabbat (see Tiltulei Shabbat, pg. 26, who forbids and implies in footnote 29 that Rav Moshe Feinstein was of that opinion). Even if one is to be strict on the matter, the rattle is not muktzeh, as it serves the baby, who certainly may independently use the rattle (ibid., footnote 28 in the name of Rav Feinstein). All should also agree that it is permitted to put the rattle in a place where he expects the child to find and use it (based on the story of R. Pedat, Yevamot 114a). 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