Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Vayegash

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Vayigash 9 Tevet 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. ===================================== Egypt, the Land of ... Ya'akov? As Ya'akov prepares to descend to Egypt, he begins to fear. Hashem appears to him in Be'er Sheva and reassures him (Bereishit 46:3-4). What was the great reassurance? "I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will certainly bring you back up." But did Ya'akov ever return to his homeland? Rashi and other commentaries explain that the promise referred to his burial, which would be in Eretz Yisrael. Indeed we see that Ya'akov was preoccupied with his burial. Parashat Vayechi begins with Ya'akov's plea to Yosef to ensure that he be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Why was this so crucial? Even if Ya'akov was concerned with the difficulties of resurrection in chutz la'aretz (see Ketubot 111a), why couldn't he have been taken up at some later point, like his sons? Ya'akov hoped to go down to visit Yosef in Egypt and return alive (see 45:28). The previous time he had left Eretz Yisrael, Hashem had assured him that he would return alive in the fullest sense of the term. As he approached the southern border of Eretz Yisrael and had not received a Divine assurance, he began to worry that this wasn't a visit, but the beginning of the exile promised in Brit Bein Habetarim. He realized that he would be the forefather of exile. How permanent would that exile be? Permanence is not only a question of years, but also a question of the qualitative permanence of the exile. The acquisition of the Ma'arat Hamachpeila gravesite by his family had anchored a spiritual presence in Eretz Yisrael, which could never be uprooted. However, the question still remained about the qualitative scope of the exile. What would the psychological affect be if the patriarch Ya'akov would not only end his life in Egypt, but his gravesite would create a more permanent presence in that impure land? Would the yearning for Eretz Yisrael be the same if "Egyptian Jewry" had a local place of pilgrimage? Indeed, Rav S.R. Hirsch saw this as the basis of Ya'akov's request of Yosef, "do not bury me in Egypt" (Bereishit 47:29). Throughout the generations of exile, especially when the concept was new, there has been tension between the need to properly prepare for the long haul ahead and the need to avoid a certain lack of permanence (see Yirmiyah 29:5). Ya'akov sent Yehuda ahead to establish a yeshiva (Rashi 46:28). But when it came to establishing a patriarchal graveside, he informed his descendents that that could only happen in their homeland, adding one more good reason to await and pray for their return to it. ======================================= P'ninat Mishpat - Intra-familial Obligations- Part X- Burial The final obligation of the husband to his wife that we will discuss in this series is that of burial. (A wife is not obligated to pay for the funeral of her late husband. The expense is taken from the estate, even if the deceased left instructions that it should not (Ketubot 48a). Of course, if the wife controls her late husband's bank accounts (personal or joint), as she usually does, then she should see to it that the proper funds are spent from that money toward a respectable funeral). The basic rule in determining the level of expense the husband should incur to ensure a dignified funeral is that it should be at least according to local practice. An interesting machloket on this point is found in the gemara (Ketubot 46b, 48a). When there are conflicting standards of living between the husband's and the wife's families, we generally say, "olah imo v'eina yoredet imo," she goes up [in level] with him but she does not go down with him. In other words, she gets the higher of the two standards, that of his family or hers. However, in regard to the standard of the funeral there is a conflicting opinion that states that the standards of her family are used, even if those of his family are higher. The gemara suggests that the rule of elevating standards may only apply during one's lifetime. Why? It is possible that the basic law should only have assured that her standards are preserved. However, since the wife is living among his relatives, it is embarrassing to her that she has less than her in-laws. It is possible to claim that in questions of after death, the psychological considerations no longer play a role. (In any case, we rule that the higher standards are indeed used- Even Haezer 89:1) ===================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Organ Donations- Part I - Donation by the Living (from Chavot Binyamin, siman 109) [For the sake of maximum accuracy in presenting the content and tone of the article on such a sensitive topic, we have translated it word for word. Usually, we use a free translation or a condensation, as often befits the forum. We suggest readers to consult the original.] Is one allowed to endanger his life in order to donate tissue or an organ, e.g. bone marrow, a kidney, the lobe of a liver or a lung? What is the level of danger into which it is permitted to enter and what is the forbidden level of danger? Is a person obligated to donate his organs to save another? There is a Torah-based obligation to act to save someone who is in danger. This is learned from that which the Torah writes in regard to returning a lost object, "vahasheivoto lo (lit. you shall return him to him)" (Devarim 22:2). This is understood as "return the person's body to himself" (Sanhedrin 73a and Rashi, ad loc.). There is also a negative commandment which obligates a person, "lo ta'amod al dam rei'echa (do not stand aside but make every effort that your friend's blood not be spilled)" (Vayikra 19:16 - see gemara and Rashi. ibid.). The baraita (ibid.) learns from there that "one who sees his friend drowning in the river or being dragged away by an animal, or bandits are standing up against him, he must save him" (ibid.). The negative commandment adds on to the positive one that even if the one who sees is incapable of saving, he is obligated to trouble himself to call others and, if necessary, hire them from his own money to save his friend. From the examples that we quoted it is apparent that one should not refrain from saving even if the act of saving includes endangering his own life. However, the Radvaz (Shut 1052 and L'shonot Harambam 1582) has a more complex picture of the matter. In one question, he deals with a ruler who says to a Jew: "Allow me to amputate a limb (in a way that you will not die), or I will kill your friend." The Radvaz rules that he is not required to agree to have the limb removed but there is a moral preference that he agree, and he who can withstand the challenge and consent is to be praised. He continues though, that if there is a danger to his life because of the amputation and he agrees, then he is a crazy righteous man (chasid shoteh), because the doubt for his life is preferable to the certain life of his counterpart. In the other responsum, explaining the obligation to save from drowning, the animal, or the bandit, he explains that one is required to enter a small level of danger, if necessary, even though one is not required to do so in a parallel case to save his friend's money. He writes: "to save his friend's life ... even in the case of a possible danger he is required to save, and this is what is found in the Yerushalmi... If he doesn't so, he has violated, 'lo ta'amod al dam reiecha'." To what level of danger is it referring, that one must be willing to enter, which is included in "lo ta'amod al dam reiecha"? He continues: "If the doubt leans toward a certainty [of danger] he is not required to sacrifice himself to save his friend. Even if the doubt is balanced [in other words, fifty fifty], he is not required to sacrifice himself, for 'what did you see [that makes you think that your friend's blood is redder]'. But if the danger is not balanced but leans toward [successful] saving, and he does not endanger himself and did not save, he violates lo ta'amod." ============================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: Is it permissible to write in the margins of holy texts for educational purposes? May one underline or highlight the text and use pencil or pen? Answer: Many of the commentaries that now surround the traditional page of the Talmud were written by great scholars in the margins of the page. Of course, due to respect for the texts, one should make an effort that the page not look unseemly due to messy scribble. There are even times when it is mandated to make notations. The gemara (Ketubot 19b) says that one should not leave holy texts without correction for extended periods of time, apparently out of fear that they will be improperly used or learned from. The poskim say that this applies to any sefer from which one learns (see Rama, Yoreh Deah 279:1 and Biur Hagra, ad loc.). The Rama does cite a ban not to make "corrections" based on personal logic unless there is a clear proof that there is a mistake. The Pitchei Teshuva (ad loc.: 3) suggests that one leave the text as is and write the apparent correction in the margin as a possibility, which has the benefits of corrections without the dangers. Writing in pencil is not only a sign of humility but also can spare embarrassment if and when one's ideas turn out to be flawed. There is a Torah prohibition not to erase any of the Divine Names (see Yoreh Deah 276:9), and there is a rabbinic prohibition against erasing any Torah texts when not necessary. One may not write over the Name of Hashem with one color ink in a way that covers the Name in another color (see Gittin 19a). However, most poskim allow one to cover the Name with ink of the same color, as this is not considered erasing the bottom writing (see Pitchei Teshuva, YD 276:6; Mishna Berura 32:128). Highlighting should be even better than this, because it is not writing, and the bottom writing is fully legible. Since it is done to make the "covered" writing more noticeable it does not seem to be a bizayon (a disgrace) either. Still, one might prefer to underline rather than highlight texts with the actual Names of Hashem. 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