Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Zav 5763

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Tzav 18 Adar II 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. ============================================= A Fire That Burns Always, In Everyone Harav Moshe Ehrenreich The term, "the fire on the altar shall burn it" appears three times in the beginning of our parasha. Once it refers to the korban olah (sacrifice that was fully consumed on the altar), once to the trumat hadeshen (that which was removed from the ashes of the altar), and once to the korban sh'lamim (sacrifice that was shared between the altar, the kohanim, and the person who offered it). A glaring difference between these references is that by the trumat hadeshen and sh'lamim the Torah adds that "it shall not be extinguished," which is not mentioned by the olah. Rashi (from Torat Kohanim) explains the word "tzav" (command) as a call for diligence, immediately and for all future generations. Do these commandments we have mentioned contain a message for all generations, including those that have not merited an altar and sacrifices? The Ba'al Hatanya (Likutei Amarim 19) explains the pasuk "the soul of man (adam) is the candle of Hashem" (Mishlei 20:27) as follows. Bnei Yisrael, who are referred to as "adam," have souls that resemble fire. Fire always moves upward, because its nature is to separate from the wick and cling to its Heavenly source, even though it will lose its source of energy in the process. So too, the Jewish soul has a desire to leave the body that sustains it and return to its Maker, even though it will cause the man to cease to exist. This natural tendency exists even among sinners in Yisrael, as can be seen historically by Jews over the ages who gave their life at the stake to sanctify His name even though they were distant from a life of Torah observance. Sacrifices are the permitted mechanism for revealing our desire to cling to Hashem to the fullest possible extent. The olah symbolizes those Jews whose entire existence revolves around the spiritual and Divine. Sh'lamim correspond to those whose lives are dedicated partially to the spiritual and partially to the physical. The trumat hadeshen refers to those who are on the lowest spiritual levels. Yet the Torah teaches us that the eternal fire, which symbolizes the soul's desire to cling to its Maker, applies to all Jews, even those who seem to be estranged from Him. So why is the added phrase, "it shall not be extinguished," mentioned specifically by the sh'lamim and deshen, not the olah? The eternal fire is clearly seen by people who follow the olah model, and because it is obvious, it does not need to be stressed. The chidush is that the fire is never extinguished, even for those by whom it is only partially evident or even totally hidden. The Yerushalmi (Yoma 4:6) learns from the phrase, "it shall not be extinguished," that the fire is lit even on Shabbat and even in the presence of tum'ah (impurity). The inner flame must indeed escort us whether we are in a period and atmosphere of holiness or one of impurity. ============================================== P'ninat Mishpat - Sh'vuot (Oaths)- Part III Those who Swear to Receive Payment We saw that all three cases of a Torah level sh'vua are where the defendant swears in order to exempt himself from payment. However, the Rabbis instituted several cases of oaths prior to receiving payment. These, known as nishba'in v'notlin, are discussed in the 7th perek of Sh'vuot. There are different categories of nishba'in v'notlin in regard to their purpose and logic. Some refer to cases where, according to Torah law, the plaintiff should have been entitled to receive payment without the need for a sh'vua to strengthen his claim. A few such scenarios involve the situation where the plaintiff possesses a shtar (document) that shows he is owed money. But Chazal required a sh'vua if the loan was partially paid, if one witness testified that the loan was paid, or even if the borrower demanded that the lender swear that he did not receive payment. Another category is where, according to Torah law, the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence to receive payment, but Chazal felt that there was reason to believe that he probably deserved it. An example is when we have proof that someone damaged his friend, but we cannot determine to what extent. According to the letter of the Torah law, he who wants to extract payment, must prove that he deserves all that he demands, which is often difficult to do. Thus, Chazal instituted that the one who was damaged (or, similarly, stolen from) would swear how much he deserves and receive the payment. A third category is where there should have been an oath, but on the defendant. However, if the defendant is unfit to make the sh'vua or is unwilling to do so, the plaintiff may, according to certain opinions and under certain circumstances, make the sh'vua in his place. ==================================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Essence of and Path to Perfection (from Perakim B'machshevet Yisrael, p. 390) The common denominator between all the classical approaches to self-perfection is that asceticism and denial of bodily needs is unnecessary. The Rambam criticizes that approach as acting "as if Hashem hates the body." The Ramchal takes a more stringent approach than the Rambam, seeing the body and its desires as the factor that drags man down and tries to trip him up, but he too does not condone withholding the body's legitimate needs. The Rambam agrees that one should ideally not take more from the world than he needs according his nature. He says that one should not get involved with over beautification of his home or clothes unless it is necessary to "widen his spirit" to cure himself from disease. So what is the difference between their respective approaches? The difference between the Rambam and the Ramchal is significant in regard to emphasis. According to the Ramchal, the main attention in the fight against the yetzer hara is on its search for indulgence. This is the weak point, which the yetzer can exploit and, therefore, the task of conquering the desires is the most fundamental one in the search for self-perfection. The efforts progress in two stages, starting with observing required limitations and progressing to limitations beyond the letter of the law, which are the realm of the unique few. The Rambam presents a very different approach. One does not need to fight his whole life against physical inclinations. Rather, at a preliminary stage, he should educate and accustom himself to a normal lifestyle. It may be true that a person can, because of poor education or surroundings, stray from the desired norm. But this is a state of disease, which the average person does not have to deal with. A person's main focus should be, rather, to dedicate himself to intellectual/spiritual pursuits. While over-indulgence takes a person away from the intellectual, delving into the intellectual causes a person's animalistic elements to subside. A person who excels in the spiritual, sees his body as the host for his spirit. Therefore, he sees the needs of the body as important for his main purpose. That which is beyond the necessary he sees as silly and not worthwhile, considering his goals. The Rambam does not talk about stages and levels of keeping the bodily tendencies under check. The minimum is also the maximum, with normalcy being the goal for all. Going beyond the normal in restraining bodily desires is needed only as a treatment for an aberration in one's status. While the Ramchal puts one under the pressure of an ongoing struggle against his own inclinations, the Rambam sees the situation differently. One should not feel saddened or pressured, but should feel that he has open spaces which allow him to strive forward to his goal of spiritual attainment. ======================================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: We have a man in shul who has been instrumental in the shul's operations and finances for years. Many years ago he got divorced from his wife. For whatever reasons (I never asked) he never gave his wife a get. The man is never given an aliyah and is shunned by our rabbi. I understand that it is the correct thing to give a get. However, does our rabbi have the halachic right to treat him so harshly after all these years? Answer: We cannot discuss the specific case, to which you refer, as we do not know its particulars. But we must speak strongly about the phenomenon you describe. One of the people we are most required to help, by searching for legitimate leniency and otherwise, is an agunah. An agunah is a woman who is chained to a husband with whom she is unable to live, either because he is missing or they are incompatible. While the main, practical problem she has is that she is unable to remarry, the feeling of limbo and helplessness she suffers from is one of the most tragic situations that exist. Only one who has been personally involved in such a situation can appreciate its severity. At times, a woman can be an agunah without it being anyone's fault (i.e. the husband is in an irreversible coma). That is tragic enough. But there are women who are in this horrible situation, because their husbands are spiteful or have monetary or other demands. This is unacceptable! This is as morally wrong as the case of a man who stalks his ex-wife because of some vendetta! If a husband has grievances against his wife, he may raise them in court, preferably a beit din. They may side with him; they may side against him. But for him to take the law into his own hands and withhold a get should not be an option our community tolerates. In Israel and, at points in history, in the Diaspora, religious courts had the practical authority to physically coerce a stubborn husband to give a get, when a get was mandated in the most clear cut manner. In cases that were a little less clear cut, they could make a harchaka d'Rabbeinu Tam, which is a painful form of publicly shunning the husband, not only in shul, but in commercial and personal settings, as well (see Even Haezer 154). Withholding aliyot is "peanuts." Nowadays, outside Israel, the main recourse is usually moral and moderate public pressure. Tragically, weak public response causes that there is often only mild or even no pressure. Again, we cannot comment on the specific case you raise. However, if the rabbinical courts have instructed your acquaintance to give a get and your rabbi has been asked to ensure some form of communal disapproval, then that is the very least that should be done. Others should follow the rabbi's lead, not question it, and should not allow their good intentions to be misdirected. ======================================================== 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