Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat vayera 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Vayeira 20 Cheshvan 5764 ************************************************** This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m, and 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. *********************************************************************** Where "Lech Lecha" Meets Vayeira Harav Yosef Carmel The words "Lech lecha" usually conjure up thoughts of the beginning of last week's parasha, when Hashem commanded Avram to leave his homeland in search of the Promised Land. Indeed the phrase appears only twice in all of Tanach. The second time is in the introduction to the last major portion of our parasha. There, Hashem commands Avraham (his name being changed already) to go to do Akeidat Yitzchak (Binding of Isaac) on a certain mountain in the Land of Moriah. These two sections share more than the same "hero," embarking on a crucial, uncertain journey. In order to teach us to find the connection between them, the Torah uses the repetition of words and phrases to connect the parshiyot. They both share the root "ra'oh" (see), prefaced by the word "asher," and both stress the root and concept of beracha (blessing). So what lesson can we learn by examining the two "episodes" together? What does the second word of the phrase, "lecha," mean? The midrash (cited by Rashi, Bereishit 12:1) says that it means, for your benefit. In other words, the journey to the unknown land (which turns out to be C'na'an) will bring great rewards. Indeed, Avram received riches and notoriety in his times, with ramifications for future generations. It was there that his beloved, barren wife finally gave birth to a son, who would carry on Avram's legacy. He received Malkitzedek, King of Shalem's blessing and negotiated successfully with the regional powers of Egypt and Pelishtim. Avram took on the allied forces of Mesopotamia and emerged victorious in the first world war. According to the midrash, he even took the princesses of neighboring countries as wives, from whom he fathered entire nations. From a strategic and worldly perspective, the promise of fame, riches and descendants is fully kept. Let us look at the second command, "Lech lecha." Coming a few decades later, with all of the successes under his belt, the second journey to Akeidat Yitzchak promised to erase almost everything he had gained. The son who was to continue his legacy was to be slaughtered, before begetting the next generation. The most respected man in the world was to turn into the laughing stock of mankind. Who would want to be blessed by association with the man who, after waiting a lifetime for a son, one who was born miraculously, would slaughter him for no apparent reason? Avraham proved that his willingness to fulfill Hashem's instructions some decades before was not because it was "for your benefit," but that his response (ibid. 22:1) "hinen?" (here I am) displayed his unconditional willingness to do the Divine Will. After proving that his ability to obey was unconnected to his apparent personal welfare, Hashem took the opportunity to bless Avraham again (ibid. 17-18). This time there would be no question if the blessing were the reason for his dedication to Hashem. It was granted after passing the hardest of all tests, without the promise of benefit and satisfaction in hand. It is fitting that this great moment took place at the site where all of mankind would be able to worship, sacrifice to, and draw close to Hashem. *********************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat- The Laws of Returning Lost Articles- IV -Beyond the Letter of the Law We have seen that the main factor determining whether one has to return an object or not is the question if the original owner's ownership fell off prior to the object being found. This distinction seems to be more of a technical, legalistic nature than a moral one. After all, if one can return the object, what difference does it make if the original owner gave up hope or not? In general, it is not our place to express an opinion whether we think that a given halacha conforms with our conception of morality or not. However, in this area, it appears that Chazal did. The gemara (Bava Metzia 24b) says that if one finds an object in a place frequented by idol worshippers, he can assume that the owner gave up hope of getting it back, and the finder can keep it. However, Shmuel instructed Rav Yehuda that if he found an object in such a situation, he should return it to its owner. He explained that this was to conform with the concept of lifnim mishurat hadin (beyond the letter of the law). The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 259:5) brings this concept as halacha, as he usually cites Talmudic statements which seem to be accepted by (the majority or critical opinions of) Chazal. The Rama (ibid. :7) brings the concept of beyond the letter of the law in another case, that of an object lost at sea, a context in which it is not found explicitly in the gemara. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (Metzia, 18) understands the Rama as not only extending the concept to another case, but in effect, creating a new rule. Whenever an owner reluctantly loses ownership of his item because he realistically gives up hope although he prefers not to, we expect the finder to do the moral thing, which is to return it, even when, strictly speaking, he isn't obligated to do so. As the Aruch Hashulchan (CM 295:7) points out, the finder does not lose money by doing so; he just fails to gain at someone else's expense. As the Shulchan Aruch Harav (ibid.) points out, the finder is not required to announce or search out the owner. Rather, if he is approached or finds out who the owner is, then he should return it. This is logical according to the Aruch Hashulchan's logic, for if he is required to search for the owner, then the time and energy is itself a loss of sorts. It also appears that unless one is confident that he will be able to reunite the owner with his object, nothing prevents the finder from using the object in the meantime. Tosafot (Bava Metzia 24b) demonstrates that this extra-legal obligation goes beyond apparently parallel cases of going beyond the letter of the law. The concept often applies to one who does not use a halachic advantage that he deserves for some reason but follows the standard rules that apply to others. Here the suggestion to return is further beyond the letter of the law, as no one in this situation would have a legal/halachic obligation to do so. *********************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Sanctity of the Golan Heights According to Halacha - part II (from Harabbanut V'hamedina pg. 431-435) [We saw last week that the Golan Heights, which is in the historical Eiver Hayarden, is part of Eretz Yisrael. Although there are some halachic differences between it and the main section of Eretz Yisrael, it shares many halachot and certainly shares the overall status of Eretz Yisrael[ Not only was Eiver Hayarden originally incorporated into Eretz Yisrael, but even in the time of the second Beit Hamikdash, its status was comparable to that of the rest of Eretz Yisrael. We find (Arachin 32a) that there were cities in Eiver Hayarden which were arei choma (special, walled cities). There are several special halachot that apply to these cities, and certainly only cities inside Eretz Yisrael are candidates for such a status. The Ramban (Bamidbar 21:21) explains why Moshe hesitated to capture the lands of Sichon and Og in Eiver Hayarden. He says that Moshe knew that Bnei Yisrael would not capture, in the first stage, all of the land of "the ten nations." He, therefore, did not want to immediately capture the land which was more distant from the center of Eretz Yisrael, as this would cause Bnei Yisrael to be more spread out than was desirable. He added that the main section of Eretz Yisrael is "the Land flowing with milk and honey." However, he says explicitly that the lands of Eiver Hayarden are part of Bnei Yisrael's inheritance. The Ramban elsewhere (Bamidbar 31:23) goes as far as to say that there was no need to purify the vessels captured from Sichon and Og, because their land was part of the land earmarked for Bnei Yisrael. For this reason, too, the tribes of Gad and Reuven were allowed to make their homeland in these areas after they were captured. The author of the Mishneh Lamelech (in Parashat Derachim, Derech Hakodesh 8) also rejects out of hand a suggestion he heard regarding Moshe's view of Eiver Hayarden. Rashi (Devarim 4:23) points out that after conquering the land of Sichon and Og, Moshe hoped that perhaps the decree that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael was rescinded, as he was actually already in Eretz Yisrael. Why was Moshe wrong? Someone suggested that that land was not part of Eretz Yisrael. However, the Parashat Derachim proves that such a claim is untenable. The Maharit (Kiryat Sefer, Terumot 1) says that it is easier to bestow kedusha on parts of Eretz Yisrael a second time than it was the first time. The requirement of a king, a prophet, and Sanhedrin was only the first time. But since the status achieved at that time never fully disappears, subsequent sanctifications can be done without these elements. Similarly, the Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:6) rules that any area that was held by those who entered Eretz Yisrael after the Exodus from Egypt remained forever a place where authentic semicha (ordination) could take place. So we see from these two sources, as well, that Eiver Hayarden, which was sanctified originally in the time of Moshe, remains part of Eretz Yisrael, in regard to overall status and several specific halachic ramifications, without the need for a specific act of re-sanctification. *********************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: My talit bag is worn out, and I have replaced it. What do I do with the old one? Answer: We'll start the discussion with a talit, upon which there are classical sources, and move on to its bag. The gemara (Megilla 26b) rules clearly: "Things used for mitzvot (tashmishei mitzva) may be thrown out; things used for holiness (tashmishei kedusha) need to be buried (nignazin)." The examples the gemara gives for tashmishei mitzva are a sukka, lulav, shofar, and tzitzit. Examples of tashmishei kedusha are Torah scrolls, tefillin, mezuzot, and the "accessories" of the above. So clearly, if tzitzit can be thrown out, then certainly their bag can, and this is what the Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chayim 21:1). On the other hand, it is clear that one is not allowed to be disrespectful to mitzvot. The gemara (Chulin 87a) says that one should not perform the mitzva of covering the blood of an animal with his feet for this is disgraceful for the mitzva. From this, the Sh'iltot (cited by the Tur, Orach Chayim 21) says that as long as an object is still related to the performance of a mitzva (such as tzitzit that are still attached to a garment) they should not be used for one's personal needs. The Tur argues, claiming that the example of covering the blood is different, because there the disgrace is at the time of performing the mitzva. But even he agrees that something which is no longer earmarked for the future performance of a mitzva loses its special status and can be discarded, according to the gemara. The problem is that later authorities suggested that it is proper to be stricter in order to show respect to articles related to mitzvot, and through them to the mitzvot themselves. The Maharil (Laws of Tzitzit) says that instead of throwing out tzitzit strings which were severed, one should look for another mitzva-related use for them. The Rama (OC 21:1) accepts and extends this approach, saying that one should not throw them in a disgraceful place. The Rama even cites those who are careful to even put them in geniza, a practice he describes as being deserving of blessing. He similarly suggests (Orach Chayim 664:9) to try to use aravot to help bake matzot (almost six months later) and thus keep them related to mitzvot. The Shulchan Aruch himself (ibid.:2) mentions that it is improper to use a worn-out talit for disgraceful purposes, (e.g. as a rag), but he does allow one to throw it out. It is not clear if he considers a talit, which is set aside for use in davening, as more or less important than the tzitzit of a regular four-cornered garment (see Pri Megadim, OC, Mishbetzot Zahav 21:3). If one can find a constructive, respectful use of the talit bag (e.g. as part of a Shabbat decoration) it would be a nice idea, but it is impractical to expect everyone to do so. So what is the halacha? The Pri Megadim (ibid.:2) is unsure whether the walls of a sukka have the status of tashmishei mitzva in reference to dealing with them after their use is over. There, the walls are at least a halachic requirement for the completion of the mitzva. A talit bag, by comparison, is just a convenience related to the mitzva article. The Mishna Berura (21:13) says that even those who say one cannot throw out tzitzit (strings) say that one can throw out a talit garment. So certainly, one may throw out the talit bag. Many have the practice to wrap up such borderline items before throwing them into the garbage. While we have not found this idea in poskim in this context, it seems consistent with the spirit of the matter. Note: Overloading geniza resources unnecessarily is not a positive thing. 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