Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Vaera

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Vaeira 1 Shevat 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. ====================================== The First and Greatest Rabbi / Harav Moshe Zvi Polin The late and sainted Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik often remarked that Moshe was simultaneously the greatest prophet, had the status of a king and served as Kohen Gadol. Yet, we never call him by any other title than Rabbenu, our Teacher. Moshe was the first and forever our greatest Rabbi. In last week's parasha Moshe experienced not depression but self-doubt. Long before he appeared before Paroh, even before Hashem called him, his first venture into leadership was challenged, "Who made you ruler and judge over us?!" (Shemot 2:14) Moshe echoed those same sentiments in an expression of self-doubt, "O Lord, ...why did you send me?" (Shemot 5:22). So, in this week's parasha, in addition to reassuring Moshe about the success of his mission, Hashem reassured him about his leadership. "So the Lord spoke to Moshe and Aharon and commanded them concerning the people of Israel" (Shemot 6:13). Moshe was "elected" rabbi of the people of Israel by one vote - Hashem's! Thus, it didn't matter later when Miriam and Aharon denigrated Moshe's elevated status, "Has the Lord spoken only through Moshe?" (Bamidbar 12:2), nor when Korach and his gang challenged Moshe's authority, "You have gone too far, for all the community is holy." (Bamidbar 16:3) The Rabbis understood Hashem's charge not only as a reassurance to Moshe but also as a bit of advice about his "congregation:" "Know that they are disobedient and bothersome. [You can lead them only] on condition that you accept their curses..." (Sifre Beha'alotcha, 91) By the end of his mission 40 years later, a much wiser and more self-assured Moshe realized that he had in fact succeeded as Hashem's messenger. He had helped to liberate Israel from Egyptian slavery, to teach them Torah, and to transform a band of freed slaves into a great people - but not without supreme effort and forbearance. Moshe Rabbenu was universally respected but, unlike his brother, Aharon, not universally loved (see Rashi, Devarim 34:8). Such is the life and destiny of a rabbi. =========================================== P'ninat Mishpat - Distancing Damages - Part II - G'rama B'nezikin (I) In several areas of halacha, there is an exemption from full responsibility in the case of g'rama. G'rama is the causing of an outcome (usually detrimental) in an indirect manner. By melacha on Shabbat, the lack of sufficient connection between the one who does the causing and the outcome lowers the level of such a form of chillul Shabbat to a minimum. G'rama on Shabbat is permitted in cases of great need, such as a significant loss of money. So too, if one damages someone else in a manner of g'rama, he is exempt from payment. One example in Shas of g'rama that is exempt from payment is of one who beats flax and causes some of its fibers to fly up in the air. In the case that a wind blew the fibers to where they cause damage to others he is exempt (Bava Kama 60a). Another case is when one places poison in a place which is accessible to his friend's animal and they die as a result (ibid. 56a). There is another category of indirect damage that is very similar in content and in name. In this category, called garmi, there is a machloket between tana'im whether or not one is liable for damages payments. We accept the opinion of R. Meir that we do obligate the one who causes through garmi (Bava Kama 100a). One example that is given is of one who decides not to uproot vegetation in a case where it forbids his neighbor's plants through the laws of kilayim (cross breeding). One of the most complicated questions in halacha is to figure out which damages fall under the category of g'rama and which are considered garmi. The Ramban dedicated a large section of one of his sefarim to the topic, but the matter still remains largely a mystery. For this reason, Tosafot (Bava Batra 22b) says that the distinction between g'rama and garmi is a rabbinic one based on practical considerations. One must realize that even if one is exempt from payment for g'rama, it does not mean that he is allowed to leave the situation which can cause damage to his friend. This will be our topic in the coming week. ======================================= Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Organ Donations- Part IV (from Chavot Binyamin, siman 109) [We have seen that one is not required to donate parts of the body to save others, but that it is an act of righteousness when the donor's life is not significantly endangered. It is a moral (not absolute) obligation when the part regenerates (e.g. blood or bone marrow).] May one charge a price to donate tissue or a limb from his body? We have a rule (Bechorot 29a) that mitzvot which a person is required to do for his friend must be done free of charge. Therefore, even one who toils greatly in order to return an object to his counterpart may not get paid for his efforts. The only exception is that he may take money in cases that the mitzva took him away from a money-making activity, in which case he can take "schar batala" (Bava Metzia 30b). For this reason, one cannot take money for doing a life-saving action, as it is categorized as returning one's body to himself, which is included in the mitzva to return lost items (Sanhedrin 73a). However, since there is not a full requirement to donate a limb or tissue for transplantation, as it does not fit into the parameters of the aforementioned mitzva, it is permitted to take pay. Indeed, we even have a pay scale, including five types of payments for those whose bodies were damaged, within the laws of damages. [Ed. note- These laws discuss forced payment after the fact by someone who actively damaged. Rav Yisraeli meant to give only an example of payment for the body, not an operative device of evaluation.] We even find (Bava Kama 93a; Choshen Mishpat 421:12) that these payments apply even when the person who is damaged agreed in advance to the damages, whether wounds or destruction of a limb, and even if he explicitly stipulated that the other would be exempt from pay. The logic is that one cannot relinquish his limbs. There is, thus, no reason to forbid one who donates from his body to demand and receive payment for his donation. The amount of the charge can be set by agreement between the donor and the family of the recipient (see Rama, Choshen Mishpat 264:7 and Gra and Netivot Hamishpat ad loc.). As long as the amount of payment is within the realm of reasonable, one should not see it as extortion or immorality, since the donor is caused physical and, at times, psychological suffering and, as we have already explained, one does not relinquish his limbs. [Ed. note- It is not clear if this last point is intended to apply to bone marrow donation, which is painful but does not have known long-term effects on the donor.] We should point out that only the donor himself may receive payment for his donation. One who mediates between the family of the recipient and the donor, whether an individual or an institution which takes upon itself to deal with such matters, may not take money. This is because the mediator is obligated to expend effort in order to do the mitzva of "returning one's body." Therefore, one is only entitled to schar batala, the amount that one loses out from other occupations during the time he deals with the mitzva. It is proper that this limitation be enforced by legislation, which will prevent the danger of commerce in body parts. [Ed. note- It would appear that even according to the rules of schar batala, one who dedicates his life to arranging such donations would be entitled to take significant, although not exorbitant, pay for his major, ongoing efforts, efforts which the average person is not obligated in - see Tosafot, Ketubot 105a)]. ============================================= Ask the Rabbi Question: When and why are we not to talk in between netilat yadayim and making "hamotzi"? Answer: There are three different stages to deal with in this context. People are not always aware of the different levels of severity of hefsek between these stages. The beracha connected to a mitzva usually precedes it. By netilat yadayim, we make the beracha after the action, because sometimes one cannot make the beracha beforehand due to dirty hands (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:11). In order not to make a break between the main part of the mitzva and the following beracha, one should not talk once he starts washing. The second stage, in between the beracha of netilat yadayim and "hamotzi" is actually the most lenient. We are quiet and try to minimize the break between the two because of the gemara's (Berachot 42a) statement that right after washing comes the beracha. However, there are different opinions about which washing the gemara is referring to (see Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 166). In any case, if one did speak, no berachot were severed from their mitzva, and there is no need to repeat anything (Mishna Berura 66:6). Only if one got so involved in other things that he forgot about keeping his hands clean, does he need to repeat netilat yadayim. The final stage is the most stringent. The bracha of "hamotzi" must directly precede the eating. Therefore, one should not stop, and certainly not speak, between the beracha and what the beracha refers to, i.e. the eating. If one talks about anything other than needs related to the food, he must repeat the beracha (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 167:6). Since the beracha is related to the main part of the eating process, i.e. swallowing, one should not talk until that point (Mishna Berura 167:34). However, since chewing is the beginning of the eating process and it is usually accompanied by swallowing some of the food's flavor, one does not repeat the beracha if he spoke after beginning to chew (Biur Halacha, ad loc.). 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