Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Yitro

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Yitro 22 Shevat 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. **************************************************************************** *********************************************** Hashem- Is He Close or Far ... Or Both? Harav Yosef Carmel Chazal chose the section describing Yeshaya's initiation as a navi as the haftara of the parasha of the giving of the Torah. What is the connection? At Har Sinai, Hashem inculcated in Bnei Yisrael the fundamental belief in a single and singular G-d. For this unique moment in history, "He who sits in the hidden heights" revealed Himself to the entirety of His chosen nation. While Hashem remained beyond the ability of a human being to see (Shemot 33:20), His Presence was evident in a palpable manner to an unprecedented degree (Shemot 20:14). From that point on, the perturbing question has been echoing in the world: where does one search for Hashem? Can He be found within us ("From my flesh I shall see Hashem"- Iyov 19:26)? Or is He out of our reach (High above High- Kohelet 5:7)? Our haftara contains the famous pasuk, "they called one to the other and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the world is full of his presence'" (Yeshaya 6:3). Anshei K'nesset Hagedola inserted this pasuk into more parts of the tefilla than any other pasuk. It is also found in the most central positions within the tefilla, leading up to Kriat Shma, in the midst of Kedusha, and in Kedusha D'sidra. What is so special about this pasuk? The pasuk starts with "kadosh" (holy) to describe Hashem. This refers to distance from Him, to fear, justice, and that which is forbidden. In the framework of these concepts, the mind and cold analysis reign supreme. On the other hand, the pasuk concludes with "k'vodo." (His glory). This refers to Divine Revelation and, with it, to closeness, love, mercy, and that which is permissible. In this realm, feeling and a warm relationship are the leading elements. The tension between these apparently competing motifs is alluded to in the pasuk, "You shall make for Me a holy place (mikdash), and I shall dwell among them." The mikdash is a place where one must practice strict laws to preserve its sanctity, yet it is also a place that enables Hashem to enter the personal realm of every individual ("dwell among them"). Which of these approaches to Hashem, of distance or closeness, is more Jewish? The answer is that both are. All Jews should serve Hashem in both frameworks. However, different Jews put a greater or lesser stress on one or the other. There is no absolute right or wrong. It depends on what suits the individual's personality and enables him to serve Hashem in the most complete way he can. It is especially critical that parents choose an educational approach that suits each child's spiritual profile. One child thrives in an open atmosphere, while another benefits from discipline, etc. We can illustrate this concept with a geometrical example. An ellipse is a figure with two foci. All points on the ellipse share the same sum-total distance from the two foci, while one is closer to one focus, and another closer to the other focus. So too, in or spiritual life, fear of Hashem and closeness to Him are the foci. Two Jews need not be in the same location. Rather, every Jew has his place on the ellipse. We must become accustomed to respecting other Jews who occupy a different location than we are used to. **************************************************************************** *********************************************** P'ninat Mishpat- An Agreement to Try to Achieve Something for a Friend (based on Piskei Din - Rabbinical Court of Yerushalayim - vol. II, pp.57-8) Case: Reuven sold a home to Shimon and obligated himself to try to secure for Shimon access to a storage room in the building. Shimon complained to beit din that Reuven had not completed that obligation. Reuven responded that since he does not have the power to get access to the storage room without the agreement of others, which is not forthcoming, he has no operative, binding responsibilities. Ruling: The Maharshdam (CM 265) wrote: "That which Reuven, the seller, made a kinyan (act of binding obligation) to get his mother and brother to agree to the sale is a kinyan devarim (agreement to do something abstract) and a kinyan doesn't apply to such a thing, because the matter depends on someone else and is not within his hands." The same author (ibid. 411) discussed one who sold a house and obligated himself to remove all complaints about the sale. Here, the Maharashdam says that the seller is required to act to remove the complaints against the sale. The resolution of the contradiction seems to be as follows. If one obligates himself to obtain someone else's agreement, that is a non-binding kinyan devarim, as he has no means of ensuring the results. However, an obligation to make an effort is binding, as the effort is within his control. In a similar vein, the Chavot Yair (128) and Machane Ephrayim (Asmachta, 4) talk about one who promises money if he does not succeed in receiving the agreement of a third party to a given endeavor. They write that he does not normally have to pay for his failure, because the related undertaking was beyond his control. However, he still would be bound by his obligation to make the necessary effort. On the other hand, the Netivot Hamishpat (60:10) says that one who committed himself to buy a specific property to give to a friend is not bound at all by the agreement, because it is totally out of his control. However, according to our distinction, the Netivot may not argue on the previous opinions. He discussed a case where the obligation was to buy a specific field and that cannot be binding. However, in our case, where he obligated himself to make the efforts, he cannot exempt himself until all reasonable efforts have been exhausted. **************************************************************************** *********************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Purity of the Israeli Army Camp - part I (from Eretz Hemdah, I, pg. 61-66) The Torah instructs Bnei Yisrael that when they "go out as an encampment against your enemy, you should stay away from anything bad ...you should have a place outside the camp, and you should go out there. You shall have a shovel along with your weapons, and it shall be when you shall be out, you shall use it to dig and you shall go back and cover your excrement. For Hashem, your G-d, is 'walking' in the midst of your encampment ... and your encampment should be holy ..." (Devarim 23: 10-15). The Rambam, in bringing these halachot (Melachim 10: 14-15), states that the laws of the purity of the battle encampment apply whether or not the aron (ark which held the Tablets of the Covenant) was with them. The Yereim (432), on the other hand, explains that these laws are predicated on the assumption that the aron was present, and the aron's presence is that which creates the need for the holiness and purity of the camp. He bases this claim on the words of the pasuk, "for Hashem, your G-d, is 'walking' in the midst of your encampment," which, he says, refers to the machane aron (an encampment with the aron present). From where does the Yereim know that the aforementioned phrase refers to "machane aron"? The mishna (Sota 42a) does make such a derivation, but this was on a different pasuk (Devarim 20:4), which deals with soldiers returning from the battle front. Apparently, the Yereim felt that if these words refer in one place to the presence of the aron, then it presumably refers to the same thing in all places where this phrase is used. The Rambam understands the use of the phrase in a more limited fashion. The Sefer Hachinuch (mitzvah 56) apparently concurs with the Rambam's position, as he says that these laws apply at the time of the Beit Hamikdash. This seems to apply even to the time of the second Beit Hamikdash. Since at that time, the aron had already been hidden (Yoma 52b), it follows that the presence of the aron cannot be a condition for the implementation of the laws of purity of the encampment. What still needs explanation in the Sefer Hachinuch is why these laws apply only during the time of the Beit Hamikdash. Apparently, he felt that the special status of the encampment applied only at a time when there was a king in Israel who lead the army, and not when Bnei Yisrael might go out as a group of individuals. The two opinions, of whether or not the laws of the purity of the encampment apply when the aron is not present, seem to be linked to the following machloket. Rashi (on Bamidbar 10:33) explains that the Torah's reference to the aron traveling before the encampment of Bnei Yisrael refers to the aron which housed the broken, first luchot. So too, Rashi explains that the wooden ark that Moshe was commanded to make was to house the broken luchot, which was independent of the aron that was in the mishkan. The Ramban (ad loc. ) argued on Rashi and said that only a single opinion among Tanaim subscribes to the idea that Bnei Yisrael had two arks with them. The majority opinion understood that there was one aron, and it housed both the intact and the broken set of luchot. The Ramban explains that that which an aron was taken out to battle at the time of the judge, Eiley, was an improper, one-time event. The Rambam, in his various writings, also only seems to refer to one aron. The Rambam now is consistent. Since there was only one aron and it was not intended to go out to war, it does not make sense that the Torah, in instructing about the proper conduct of the encampment would refer to a case in which the aron was present improperly. The mishna in Sota is then presumably talking according to the minority opinion that there was an aron which accompanied the encampment. **************************************************************************** ********************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: I have a very extensive rock collection. Is it muktzeh on Shabbat? Answer: Often, on issues of muktzeh, it is only the person who asks the question who can answer it, as we will explain. Rocks are, in general, one of the classic examples of muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:21) because, in their simple form, they do not have a defined use that would make them considered a kli (utensil). However, if one does something to prepare them to be used for a given purpose or if their owner decides, even without an act of preparation, to use them permanently for a purpose, then they are not muktzeh (ibid.:21-22). Thus, rocks that were collected for and, even more so, incorporated in a rock collection need not be muktzeh. The only question is if one's high regard for the collection causes him problems, as we will explain. Things that are purposeless are muktzeh, as there is not expected, when Shabbat begins, to be a good reason to move them. The fact that later on a use arises does not change their status. But there is a factor that makes something more muktzeh specifically because of its value. This category is called muktzeh machmat chisaron kis (=mmck). The classical cases of mmck that are discussed in the gemara and early poskim deal with utensils that are designed to perform functions that are forbidden on Shabbat (keilim she'melachtam l'issur). Such utensils can be moved only in limited circumstances (details of which are beyond our present scope). However, if these utensils are additionally the type that are important enough to their owners that they are careful not to use the utensils for anything other than their main purpose, then they are mmck. As such, they are further off limits and cannot be moved at all (ibid.:1). What happens if you have the second level of "muktzeh factor" without the first? In other words, what happens if you have a utensil that is made for permitted use (kli shemelachto l'heter) but because of different reasons, including its value, its owner is careful that it is not moved around? Two things are quite clear. Firstly, the Rambam (Shabbat 25:9) says that an object that was totally set aside not to be used on Shabbat, because, for example, it was put away to be sold, is mmck even if its ultimate use is for permitted activities (see Aruch Hashulchan 308:11). It is also clear that a kli shemelachto l'issur is more easily assumed to be mmck, because its range of possible uses starts off limited before the issue of its value (see Mishna Berura 308:8 & Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:4).A kli shemelachto l'heter needs a higher level of concern about its damage to be mmck. The question is where to draw the line. Cases which are disputed by recent poskim include pictures and clocks that are hung on a wall. Rav Moshe Feinstein z.t.l. (responsum #13 in "Tiltulei Shabbat") says that these are not muktzeh. His implied rationale seems to be that hanging them up on the wall is the way to use them, not the way to remove them from use. But Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata (20:22) says that since one is careful not to move them from their places for fear they may get damaged, they are set aside as immovable objects, along the lines of the Mishna Berura (ibid.). (The Chazon Ish (OC 43:17) implies that even if something is not moved because there is no reason to move it, it is muktzeh). Presumably, if one often removes or rearranges the clock or picture, then it would not be muktzeh, but most people do not do so. Your case depends on you. If you move around rocks in the collection or take out individual rocks on a semi-regular basis, then they are not muktzeh. If you are consciously careful to keep them untouched for extended periods then the matter depends on the opinions of the poskim mentioned. 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