Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Vayeshlach

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Vayishlach 18 Kislev 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. ================================= Go up to Beit El / Harav Yosef Carmel One of the first commandments which Ya'akov received upon returning to Eretz Yisrael was: "Get up and go up to Beit El and dwell there and erect there an altar for the G-d who appeared to you, as you fled your brother, Eisav" (Bereishit 35:1). This journey to Beit El completed a personal, historical cycle. It was, after all, there that Hashem appeared to Ya'akov and promised him that he would return unharmed to the land that was promised to him and his offspring (see Bereishit 28:13-15). Rashi (35:1) sees this command as a sign of criticism of Ya'akov, saying: "get up- because you have delayed on the road, you were punished, and this is what transpired to your daughter (the rape of Dina)." Examining the p'sukim in the light of the broader picture of Tanach uncovers just how significant the events of Beit El were. Ya'akov's family was commanded, "purify yourselves and change your garments"(35:2). This is parallel to the command in preparation for the giving of the Torah: "You shall sanctify yourselves today and tomorrow and launder your clothing" (Shemot 19:10). Another preparatory procedure which Ya'akov undertook upon entering the Land, at Shechem, is also parallel to a procedure that Bnei Yisrael would undergo hundreds of years later in the same place, as they entered the Land with Yehoshua. Ya'akov told his household to "remove the alien gods from their midst" (Bereishit 35:2). Yehoshua commanded Bnei Yisrael the same thing at Shechem (Yehoshua 24:23). Both times the idols were buried under an ??? at Shechem (see Midrash, cited by Radak, ad loc.). We now have a link between the two events at Shechem and the giving of the Torah. There are many rishonim who see the need to rush to Beit El as a response to the battle at Shechem, which is likely the source of these idols. We will suggest a different approach. When Ya'akov and family entered Eretz Yisrael, there was a need to create a new covenant with Hashem, including acceptance of the obligation to serve Him on the level of Eretz Yisrael. We might call this, "the acceptance of the Torah of Eretz Yisrael" (see Ibn Ezra, Bereishit 35:2 & Devarim 31:16). This was also the idea behind Yehoshua's ceremony in Shechem as Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, to renew and update the covenant as they prepared to implement the "Torah of Eretz Yisrael." Ya'akov's acceptance of the covenant also brought along a reward, as the Torah concludes this episode with the following report. "They traveled, and the fear of Hashem was on the cities around them, and they did not chase after the sons of Ya'akov" (35:5). This pasuk is found here (not directly after the story of the battle at Shechem) in order to stress the reason for this miraculous protection. ======================================= P'ninat Mishpat-Intra-familial Obligations-Part VII-Support for a Widow (II) We saw last week that a widow receives support (mezonot) from her husband's estate after his death. This, however, continues only as long as she is content to live as the widow of the deceased. According to one opinion in the gemara (Ketubot 54a), once she starts acting in a way which indicates that she is preparing for remarriage (which is certainly reasonable behavior), she no longer is entitled to mezonot. We do not accept that opinion, because she can still decide to continue to live as a widow. However, once she is betrothed, she has effectively severed her status as a dependent of the estate and no longer receives mezonot (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 93:7). Other cases where she loses mezonot include when she demands full payment of her ketuba or other cases where she is no longer entitled to a ketuba (sold or relinquished her rights, etc.) (Shulchan Aruch, ibid. :8-12). The logic is that the support as a wife even after termination of marriage by death is an extension of the concept of ketuba (t'nai ketuba). In a case where the ketuba itself no longer exists, its extension ceases to exist as well. The cessation of mezonot is not to be seen as a tragedy, as the ketuba which she receives is designed to be sufficient to supplement her income until she is able to continue a normal life, hopefully with remarriage. From that point, she is in the same situation as a divorced woman. We should stress that the orphans/inheritors do not have a personal liability to the widow/mother (beyond tzedaka, where applicable). Rather, the obligation is on the property of the estate. If the deceased left no property or if the property was already used up, she cannot demand payment from the personal earnings of the inheritors. ================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Nature of the Mitzva to Educate Children- part II (condensed from Amud Hay'mini, siman 54) [We saw last time that there are two elements to the mitzva of chinuch (educating a minor): to get him cognitively accustomed to the mitzva and to expose him to the spiritual elevation which surrounds a mitzva even when he is not capable of appreciating it cognitively. We saw distinctions between the responsibility of a father in chinuch and that of a mother or beit din.] We find several examples of the mitzva of chinuch before the child is capable to understand a thing. Shamai required bringing even the smallest of infants to the sukka (others argued because of the child's dependency on his mother), despite the fact that he does not understand what is happening (Sukka 28a; see Ran, ad loc., contradicting P'nei Yehoshua and Rashash). The Yerushalmi (Chagiga 1:1) requires babies to be brought to Yerushalayim for the regel. Also, the gemara, describing the different stages when a child is obligated in various mitzvot (Sukka 42a) does so based on their ability to fulfill the physical requirements of each specific mitzva, not based on the cognitive level, which probably does not change from mitzva to mitzva. On the other hand, there are also examples of chinuch which depend on the ability of the child to understand. It appears clear that when the mitzva is performed without the child being able to understand it, the child is not considered the one who is obligated and is fulfilling the mitzva. Rather, the educator is the one who performs the mitzva in regard to the child [as we brought last week in regard to hakhel]. On the other hand, we find that a minor can fulfill the mitzva of Birkat Hamazone on behalf of an adult who is obligated on a rabbinic level (Berachot 20b). This implies that the minor himself has an obligation on a rabbinic level. We saw [last week] that there may be chinuch for positive mitzvot, but not for negative ones, or by the father but not the mother. On the level of spiritual effect, it should not make a difference who prevents the child from the violation or whether his father or mother educates him. Therefore, these distinctions must relate to the cognitive level, where the father's education for positive mitzvot has a special impact. The developing child and the father share in this obligation. The mother and father are equally obligated to care for exposure of the child to mitzvot in the non-cognitive realm, in those areas that this applies. Beit din, while charged with preventing sinners from sinning, are not obligated to ensure that children, who are not characterized as sinners, do not violate prohibitions. The distinction between a child's obligation and the parents' explains a difficult Rashi. The gemara (Megilla 19b) says that a minor can read the megilla for others when he reaches the age of chinuch. Rashi says that this from the age of 9. But we find minors obligated in other mitzvot before age 9, and we are obviously talking about a child who is capable of performing the mitzva (or the question would be moot)!? The answer is that we are talking about the age where the chinuch is the child's own mitzva, not his parents'. Only then can he be considered obligated and be able to fulfill the mitzva for others. This is the age of cognition for mitzvot, which Rashi learns from chinuch for fasting on Yom Kippur. Apparently, since the food itself is not a prohibited item on Yom Kippur, but the timing is the issue, there is only a cognitive mitzva to keep a minor away from eating, and the age of 9 is related to general cognition. ===================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: May one make Shabbat evening Kiddush on white wine? Answer: The gemara (Bava Batra 97a-b) says that wine for Kiddush must be fit for nesachim (libations). The ensuing discussion on applying that rule appears to reveal that grape juice and white wine are marginally fit for nesachim and fine for Kiddush. However, the gemara concludes by bringing a pasuk (Mishlei 23:31) that indicates that wine is classically red. In order to deal with the apparent contradiction, the Ramban (ad loc.) distinguishes between red wine with a tint of white (apparently, rose), which is kosher, and pure white, which is not. The Yerushalmi (Shekalim 3:2) implies that it is proper to use red wine, but that other wine can be used as well. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 272:4) brings two opinions and writes that the custom is according to the more lenient opinion that permits the use of white wine for Kiddush. The Mishna Berura states (272:12) that if the white wine is very white and red wine is available, the red wine is preferable, in deference to the Ramban's position. If one does not have red wine available or if the red wine is of a significantly inferior quality, one can use the white wine without compunction (ibid.). There are many opinions that, during the day, one may use anything which is categorized as chamar medina (whose exact definition we don't have room to discuss here), and this includes all types of wine (Shulchan Aruch ibid.:9). Therefore, if one who has red and white wine of similar quality, it is preferable to do one of the following. 1) One can choose the red wine for the night and the white wine for the day. 2) Drinking wine is (if done in moderation) a positive part of the festive meals of Shabbat and Yom Tov (Shulchan Aruch, OC 250:2). Therefore, it is perfectly normal to make Kiddush on red wine and enjoy some white wine during the course of the meal. (We respect those who feel that, for educational reasons, they do not want their children to see them drinking wine beyond the minimum required by halacha. There are different, valid educational approaches on this and other issues.) If a guest brings white wine as a gift and might be insulted if it is not used for Kiddush, this is reason enough to use it. ================================== 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