|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
רבני שו"ת מורשת |
|
|
|
הרב אישון שלמה
מסחר וצרכנות כהלכה
|
|
|
הרב אלנקווה יוסף
כללי וטיפול בחרדה, חינוך ילדים ודיני אבלות
|
|
|
מר גלברד שמואל
טעמי המנהגים ומקורותיהן
|
|
|
הרב לאו דוד
שאלות הלכתיות
|
|
|
הרב ערוסי רצון
משפט התורה, משנת הרמב``ם ושאלות הלכתיות
|
|
|
הרב עמית קולא
הלכה ומחשבה
|
|
|
הרב אברהם יוסף
שאלות בהלכה, הלכות שבת וחג.
|
|
|
הרב שרלו יובל
שאלות בהלכה; מחשבה ומשנת הציונות הדתית
|
|
|
מכון התורה והארץ
מצוות התלויות בארץ
|
|
|
רבני מכון פועה
גניקולוגיה ופוריות, טהרת המשפחה, חתנים
|
|
|
מכון עתים
ייעוץ ומידע במעגל החיים היהודי
|
|
|
מכון שלזינגר לרפואה והלכה
רפואה והלכה
|
|
|
מכון שילה
פסיכולוגיה קלינית-טיפול זוגי ומשפחתי, טיפול ב
|
|
|
הרב איר שמחוני
שלום בית, ייעוץ זוגי, הורות
|
|
|
הרב ברוך אפרתי
הלכות צבא וסוגיות אזרחיות
|
|
|
הרב משולמי כתריאל
מודעות והגשמה עצמית
|
|
|
הרב יעקב רוז`ה
אבלות, זיהוי חללים והתרת עגונות
|
|
|
אמונה
|
|
|
הלכה בתחום הצבאי, שבת ומועדים וטהרת המשפחה
|
|
|
בריתות
|
|
|
הרב ראובן בר-כץ
זוגיות, קשיים בחיי הזוגיות והאישות
|
|
|
רבני דרך אמונה
הלכות מדינה, משנת הרב קוק, משנת הציונות הדתית
|
|
|
רבני מכון משפטי ארץ
דיני ממונות
|
|
|
הרב שמעון בן שעיה
גישור כהלכה - זוגיות, שלו``ב, גירושין, אישות
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RRBBMMTranslated by Moshe Goldberg, HaifaBBMMRR
|
|
|
פרשת שלח
(גיליון 39
, 16/06/2008
)
|
|
Yehoshua in Confrontation As Opposed to Kalev, Who Seems to Compromise - by Zvulun Orlev, MK
(Point of View
/Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of t)
In the difficult affair of the ''Sin of the Scouts,'' one important element is the outspoken positions taken by Yehoshua Bin Nun and Kalev Ben Yefuneh, who clearly oppose the opinions of the other...
In the difficult affair of the ''Sin of the Scouts,'' one important element is the outspoken positions taken by Yehoshua Bin Nun and Kalev Ben Yefuneh, who clearly oppose the opinions of the other scouts. This is unusual in that common experience shows that people tend to join the majority opinion and to avoid opinions which cause controversy, even if they are correct in an absolute sense. Most people do not argue with the majority opinion. Yehoshua and Kalev did not act in this way. They courageously dared to state their opinions in public, even though they knew that nobody was ready to listen to them. They even put themselves into physical danger because of their views: ''And the entire nation threatened to stone them'' [Bamidbar 14:10].
Two Ways to Disagree with Those in Error
How did Yehoshua and Kalev guard against the thoughts of the other scouts and avoid being influenced by the majority? Weren't they afraid for their safety when they dared to openly defy the other leaders? Quoting Bamidbar Rabba, Rashi comments on the verse, ''Moshe called Hoshaya Bin Nun Yehoshua'' [13:16], ''He prayed for him, Let G-d save you from the ideas of the scouts.'' The Chafetz Chaim asks: Why didn't Moshe also pray for Kalev? After all, he agreed with Yehoshua and was also exposed to the ideas of the scouts. His answer is that there are two ways to serve G-d when ''the forces of error gain strength in the world.'' One way is to make loud and public declarations about the correct path, openly and courageously disagreeing with those who are wrong. Those who follow this approach do not make any compromises and they argue forcefully about important principles. The other approach is to remain silent while in the presence of those who are wrong, hiding one's true opinion, and not openly opposing their views. Only at the proper moment does such a person reveal his true opinion and refute the arguments of his opponents, when he sees an opportunity to win the dispute.
Both approaches have their benefits and their shortcomings. The Chafetz Chaim illustrates this with an example. A man who stands for a long time in a very cold place will eventually lose his internal body heat and die. This is like a person who holds back, waiting for the right moment. But if he fights openly for his faith, not only will his internal strength not cool down but his faith will become stronger. On the other hand, if he openly shows his true opinion at too early a stage, he might be injured by his opponents, including physical violence. However, while holding back in order to avoid open conflict might lead a person to become so weak that he will be forced to join the erroneous side, it has the advantage that the others will not try to harm him. Another advantage of this approach is that when the right moment comes he will be able to prove his opponents' error. The sudden revelation of his approach will help to convince the listeners.
Here is how the Chafetz Chaim explains the situation: Based on the holy inspiration of ''Ruach Hakodesh,'' Moshe understood the personal traits of both Yehoshua and Kalev, and he chose the best path for each one to succeed in his mission while together with the scouts and their serious error. Yehoshua was best in the strong approach, that of open conflict with the sinners. Kalev, on the other hand, used the second approach of silence at first followed by a sudden surprising and convincing argument. And that is why only Yehoshua needed Moshe's prayer to save him from the ideas of the scouts – he was directly in danger of being harmed by the others.
In summary, the Chafetz Chaim says that both of the above paths are equally acceptable to the Almighty. A proof of this is the comment of the Tosefta that sometimes Yehoshua is mentioned before Kalev and sometimes Kalev is mentioned first. We might have thought at first glance that Yehoshua is greater than Kalev, since Moshe taught him the Torah and G-d chose him to replace Moshe as a leader. However, with respect to the proper way to react to a group of mistaken colleagues, both approaches are valid. Every person must act in the way that is best for his own personality, his skills, and his experience.
Yehoshua and Kalev in Modern Times
In many ways, the political dilemmas that face us today – mainly in our ability to influence the Jewish character of the country, the status of education, social values, and other matters – are similar to the dilemmas that faced Yehoshua and Kalev. A basic principle of the approach of religious Zionism is that we are closely linked to the general population, fully integrated into the institutions of the land in all walks of life, and that we share the responsibility for leading the country, even though we are dissatisfied with various aspects of the life here. How should we react? Should we use an approach of struggle which might increase the divisions or do we spend our time in discussions, attempts to reach a compromise, and a peaceful approach? Should we always try to be part of the coalition government – accepting compromise – in order to have an influence on the country, or would it be better to remain in the opposition where we can maintain a strong stand based on our principles, without any compromise?
Evidently the best approach is for every individual, every movement, every political party, and every community to act in a way that takes advantage of their strengths, traits, personality, and relative advantages. Every plan of action that is chosen should be treated with patience and tolerance. As the Chafetz Chaim wrote, ''Both approaches are good and acceptable to the Almighty,'' as long as everything is done in the name of G-d.
|
|
|
|
|
Should We Actively Seek to Chase Away a Mother Bird? - by Rabbi Re'eim Hacohen, Rosh Yeshiva and Chi
(Responsa For Our Times
/Rabbi Re'eim Hacohen)
Question: Is there a mitzva to make an effort to observe the commandment of ''shiluach haken'' – chasing away a mother bird from the nest before taking the eggs – even if there is no real need for...
Question: Is there a mitzva to make an effort to observe the commandment of ''shiluach haken'' – chasing away a mother bird from the nest before taking the eggs – even if there is no real need for the mother, the eggs or the chicks in the nest?
Answer:
When the Mother is Needed
The mitzva of shiluach haken is as follows: ''If you happen upon a bird's nest in your path, in any tree or on the ground, with chicks or eggs and the mother watching over the chicks or the eggs, do not take the mother with the offspring – send the mother away and then take the children for you, so that you will have good and you will have a long life.'' [Devarim 22:6-7]. This seems to imply that it is forbidden to take the mother together with the offspring, and that what is permitted is to send the mother away and take the children. But in the Mishna it is written that even though the text allows us to ''take the children'' the mitzva is also relevant when the person is interested in keeping the mother (Chulin 12:3). In this case, the mother should be chased away and then captured. This means that the mitzva is not only for the case when the chicks or the eggs are needed.
When neither the Mother nor the Offspring are Needed
Does this mitzva apply when the person does not need the mother or the offspring? In Responsa Chavat Yair there is a proof that somebody who encounters a nest is required to send away the mother in order to observe the mitzva even if he has no need for either the mother or the young birds (section 67). This is noted by Birkei Yosef and Pitchai Teshuva and it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Dei'ah 292).
However, in contrast with these opinions, the simple reading of the early commentators implies that it is not true. In his list of the mitzvot at the beginning of the laws of ''Shechita'' – ritual slaughtering – the Rambam writes, ''Not to take the mother with the children: To send away the mother if one wants to take away the children.'' This implies that the mitzva applies only if one needs to take the offspring. This is also explicitly stated in the Sefer Hamitzvot (prohibition 307). The RAN writes in his commentary that there is no mitzva of sending away the mother if there is no need for the offspring, and in that case the mitzva of sending the mother away does not take precedence over a prohibition (Chulin 139a). Rabbi Henkin also sees the words of the Meiri as supporting the opinion of the RAN (Responsa Bnei Banim 3:5). It is not clear from the RAN whether in such a case even though there is no obligation one observes a mitzva by sending the mother away, and the Chacham Tzvi (section 83) indeed understands that even though the person is not obligated a mitzva remains.
The Chatam Sofer (Orach Chaim 100) proved from the Tosafot in Chulin (140b) that there is no mitzva if the eggs are not needed. But he saw an apparent contradiction between Rashi in Chulin 141a and Rashi in Bava Metzia 120a – in Chulin it seems that the obligation is not linked to whether the eggs are needed while in Bava Metzia it seems that one must send the mother away only if he needs the eggs. The Chatam Sofer concluded that the language of the Talmud corresponds to Rashi's conclusion in Bava Metzia, and that there is certainly no obligation to search for bird nests in order to fulfill the mitzva. He ends his discussion using very strong language: ''Since according to this approach there is no obligation to perform this mitzva when one does not want the offspring... one who does perform the act is being cruel for no reason, and the sages are not happy with him.'' The Natziv also disagreed with the Chavat Yair (Meromei Sadeh, on the Talmud in Chulin), stating that there is no mitzva if the chicks are not needed, ending his words by writing that ''this is the accepted practice.'' This also corresponds to the opinion of Minchat Chinuch (mitzva 544) and that of the author of Torah Temimah, who argued against the opinion of his father, the author of Aruch Hashulchan.
Conclusion
Most of the early rabbis feel that there is no obligation to observe the mitzva of shiluach haken if there is no need for the chicks or the eggs. This corresponds to the opinions of the Chatam Sofer, the Natziv, and the Minchat Chinuch. It is therefore clear that the best action is to ''remain idle and do nothing'' in order to avoid violating the prohibition of causing a living creature to suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Reb Shlomo Meets a Convert - by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen, Merkaz Neria, Kiryat Malachi
(A Lesson for The Children
/Yikhat Rozen)
One time Rabbi Shlomo Karlebach was flying to some destination or other. He saw that a stewardess was mumbling something while holding a siddur in her hand. He was surprised by this unusual sight,...
One time Rabbi Shlomo Karlebach was flying to some destination or other. He saw that a stewardess was mumbling something while holding a siddur in her hand. He was surprised by this unusual sight, and he waited patiently until she finished her prayers. Then he said, ''I see you are praying from a siddur. Are you Jewish?'' And she answered, ''My parents are not Jewish, but I was attracted to Judaism. I studied for several years with a rabbi, and I recently converted in a religious ceremony. As you can see, I observe a completely religious life.''
A few minutes later, the stewardess came to Reb Shlomo and said to him: ''Are you a rabbi? Could you help me with an urgent problem?'' And Reb Shlomo nodded his head.
''I recently met a Jewish man, but his parents are very much against our getting married because I am a convert. They have threatened to force us to break up. We are very much in love, but he is very close to his parents and doesn't want to go against their will. He is very upset by the whole matter, and I am afraid that he will leave me. Can you help me?''
''I will try,'' Reb Shlomo said. ''Give me his parents' phone number as well as yours, and I will try my best to get them to agree to the marriage.''
When Reb Shlomo landed he phoned the young man's parents but he was rebuffed very strongly. The more he tried to convince the girl's father the angrier he became, until he shouted into the phone: ''I want you to know that I am a survivor of the Holocaust! Because of what G-d did to me through the Gentiles I hate Judaism, but I hate the Gentiles too. If my son marries a non-Jewish girl, I will kill him! It doesn't matter that she went through some conversion ceremony. As far as I am concerned, she is a Gentile, and that's all there is to it!''
Reb Shlomo understood that continuing the conversation would not help, and he hung up. He called the stewardess in order to tell her that he had failed in his mission, but her father answered the phone. Reb Shlomo told the father about how he had tried to help his daughter. The father was very angry that Reb Shlomo had mixed into the situation and had tried to get the two sides to agree. To justify what he did, Reb Shlomo explained: ''It is written in the Talmud that the Almighty spends one-third of His time making matches, and all I was trying to do was help Him a little bit. But it is clear to me that your daughter and the young man love each other very much, and it will be a pity if they do not get married.''
Reb Shlomo's sympathetic voice had an effect on the father. He started to cry, and he said, with great emotion: ''I will tell you something that I have never told anybody else, something I was sure I would never reveal to anybody at all. My wife and I are not really Christians. We are both Jews who survived the Holocaust, and we hate Judaism because of what G-d did to the Jews. We act as if we are Christians, even though we never formally converted, and we raised our children as Christians. They do not know the truth.''
''But then,'' Reb Shlomo said excitedly, ''your daughter is a born Jew, and there is no problem at all! The young man's father wants his daughter-in-law to be Jewish, and now we know that she really is. Tell her the truth, and let them get married!'' The stewardess' father agreed, and Reb Shlomo managed to convince the parents to meet.
The four parents met soon afterwards, together with Reb Shlomo. As soon as they saw each other, one of the fathers shouted out: ''Yankele!'' And the second one replied, ''Hersheleh!'' And they fell on each other, weeping. Later, they explained to their astounded wives that before the war had broken out, they not only knew each other but studied together in the same yeshiva. Each one was sure that the other one had perished in the Holocaust. Their memories burst out of them in a rush. They remembered their lost childhood, talking with nostalgia tempered by sharp pain.
One of the fathers said, ''Do you remember how we dreamed about the future when we were students in the yeshiva? We promised each other that when we grew up, got married and had children, they would marry each other. We may have forgotten our promise, but G-d did not forget...''
(Source: ''Besheva'' – With thanks to Mrs. Sarah Goodman)
Reactions and suggestions for stories: yikhat1@smile.net.il
|
|
|
|
|
Scouts, Challah, and Wine - by Rabbi Amichai Gordin, Yeshivat Har Etzion and Shaalvim High School
(Holy and Secular
/Rabbi Amichai Gordin)
Kindergarten teacher: Children, can you tell me who brings the rain?
Children: G-d in His strength brings the rain.
Teacher: And who makes the wheat grow?
Children: G-d in His mercy causes the ...
Kindergarten teacher: Children, can you tell me who brings the rain?
Children: G-d in His strength brings the rain.
Teacher: And who makes the wheat grow?
Children: G-d in His mercy causes the wheat to grow.
Teacher: Here is one last question – Who brings us our bread?
Children: Angel's Bakery, they are the ones who bake bread for us...
* * * * * *
''What is the blessing for fruit? The blessing for fruit from a tree is 'He who creates the fruit of the tree.' Except, that is, for wine... For wine the blessing is 'He who creates the fruit of the vine.' For fruit of the earth, the blessing is 'He who creates the fruit of the earth,' except for bread... The blessing for bread is 'He who brings forth the bread from the earth.'' [Berachot 7a].
* * * * * *
''What is bad about the desert?'' the scouts thought. ''Here we receive the plenty of G-d. If we enter the land, we will be forced to eat from our own labors and not manna which descends from heaven. It is better to eat the holy bread of G-d than to eat our own bread. Let us stay in the desert.''
''What a foolish idea,'' the Almighty scolded them. ''Who is it that causes the yeast to be blessed? Who causes the dough to become leavened? Who ferments the wine? Who transforms the sugar in the juice into a drink that increases the happiness of man? You invest your time in making bread and wine, but I am the one who stands behind everything you do. You receive the bread and the wine from me. Even after you enter the land you will continue to receive my bread every morning. It may arrive from a bakery and not directly from heaven, but it is still My bread. In order to remember this fact, you must set aside 'Challah' from the dough and offer wine as a sacrifice on the Altar.''
* * * * * *
Every apple which we pick from a tree comes from the Almighty. And this is the reason that we set aside Teruma from the produce which we receive from G-d, it reminds us that G-d is the source of the fruit. Before we eat the apples we have picked, we give one apple to a representative of G-d, to a Kohen.
The bread which we bake also comes from the Almighty. He is the one who gave us the strength to knead the dough and the wisdom to make it into bread, and He sent us a blessing within the dough. Our actions and creativity all stem from the Almighty. ''If G-d does not build a house, those who are building it are working in vain'' [Tehillim 127:1]. Even after we have invested sweat and tears in the bread, it is not really ours, it belongs to the Almighty. And that is why even though we separated Teruma from the grains we must once again give some of the dough to the Kohen, a representative of the Almighty. We must set aside Challah, to show that all the fruits of our labor belong to Him.
The above reasoning is true for bread and for anything else that we have created. Even the greatest factory that we ever developed and built would not exist if not for the blessings of the Creator of heaven and earth. ''If G-d does not build a house, those who are building it are working in vain.''
* * * * * *
''Because of the sin of not setting aside Teruma and Maaser, rain does not fall. Because of the sin of not setting aside Challah, there is no blessing in the storehouses of the grain.'' (Based on Shabbat 32b).
In return for our giving Teruma and Maaser we receive a plentiful yield from nature. In return for giving Challah we receive plenty and a blessing in all our own endeavors.
* * * * * *
The blessing for fruit is a general one, but there are special blessings for bread and wine. This special wording reminds us that the bread we baked and the wine we prepared are not simply products of our own labors but rather the work of ''our G-d, King of the Universe.''
|
|
|
|
|
A Hundred Years since His Death - by Rabbi Uri Dasberg, the Zomet Institute
(People of Israel
/Rabbi Uri Dasberg)
Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor Chazzan, the author of the four-volume Responsa ''Taalumat Lev,'' died on the twenty-second of Sivan 5668 (1908), one hundred years ago. His grandfather, Rabbi Chaim David Cha...
Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor Chazzan, the author of the four-volume Responsa ''Taalumat Lev,'' died on the twenty-second of Sivan 5668 (1908), one hundred years ago. His grandfather, Rabbi Chaim David Chazzan, was ''Rishon Letzion,'' the Sephardi chief rabbi. When the chief rabbi of the time (Rabbi Yaacov Shaul Elyassar) passed away, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor was offered the job, but he refused because he did not want to become involved in the many controversies surrounding the position. Instead he took on other important positions: He established the role of ''Chacham Bashi'' in Libya, and served as chief rabbi of the country for thirteen years. Afterwards he moved to Alexandria, in Egypt, where he served as chief rabbi for twenty years.
In Libya, Rabbi Eliyahu proposed establishing ''one school with a number of rooms, where all the students will be able to study Hebrew, writing, arithmetic, and languages, including Italian, which is used in business.'' The reaction to this was harsh criticism: How could he propose including secular studies in a yeshiva?
Rabbi Eliyahu himself had vast knowledge of modern literature, in addition to his expertise in all aspects of the Torah. In one of his books, ''Zicharon Yerushalayim,'' a messenger from Jerusalem argues with an ''enlightened'' Jew from Tunis, covering such subjects as the attitude of Diaspora Jews towards Jews living in Eretz Yisrael, civil marriage, holy and secular studies, science and religion, and more. In this book he demonstrates broad knowledge of many languages, including Spanish, Italian, French, and Arabic. He was one of the rabbis who proposed organizing a worldwide rabbinical conference that was to meet in Krakow, in Poland, to discuss many questions that the modern developments of the early twentieth century posed to Jewish leaders. The conference did not take place because of opposition which is hinted at in ''Taalumot Lev.'' From his home in Alexandria he tried to unite the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities in Jerusalem but he did not succeed (to this very day?).
The above book includes many subjects which the new generations of northwest Africa and Egypt encountered: The European style of dress, mixed seating in public affairs and family gatherings, the proper attitude towards Gentiles, converts, and communities which have become remote from Judaism (such as the Kara'ites), the authority of the rabbinical courts over the entire community of Yisrael, Bar mitzva celebrations, alimony for a divorced woman, civil marriages, and even Jewish prostitutes. Many of his responsa deal with the phenomenon of abandoning religion which was spreading throughout Europe and had begun to infiltrate into northwest Africa and Eretz Yisrael. He also discussed new technologies, such as trains and steam boats. In Egypt he wrote ''Naveh Shalom,'' a summary of customs in Egypt. He answered questions sent to him from all over the world – Rumania, London, Gibraltar, and other places.
Words of Torah by our Subject:
''Let it be tzitzit for you'' [Bamidbar 15:39]. As opposed to other items where the phrase ''for you'' appears, such as the lulav or chametz, which is interpreted to mean that the phrase applies exclusively to what belongs to you, a person can fulfill this mitzva with tzitzit that belongs to somebody else. However, it is written in the ''Chikrei Lev'' that if in a private home the owner offers his Talit to another person in order to show respect for him, this gives the appearance that the owner is trying to avoid performing the mitzva of tzitzit. The author writes that one should not show preference to a learned man in a matter where he himself is obligated. The CHIDA did not agree, and he wrote that the custom in Jerusalem is indeed to show respect for a prominent man by offering him the talit. Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor Chazzan felt that for such a rare case (praying in a home) it is wrong to try to establish a set custom. He writes the following about his own practice: ''When I pray in a synagogue where there is a sermon at the time of Mincha on Shabbat and some person offers me his Talit I accept it gracefully ... When the opportunity arises I must not refuse to perform a mitzva that comes my way... The other people must not get the impression that I do not want to do the mitzva, G-d forbid, as they have not studied all the aspects of the mitzva.'' Thus, the custom described by the CHIDA is as follows: A prominent person can accept a Talit that is offered to him, but this does not mean that in general a person should offer his own Talit, even to a person who is greater than he is.
|
|
|
|
|
A Year Since Rabbi Shagar Passed Away - by Rabbi Shlomo Shok, teacher in Yeshivat Siach and Nokdim P
(A Chassidic Thread
/Rabbi Shlomo Shok)
Time after time, just like the scouts in this week's Torah portion, we put all our efforts in an attempt to avoid facing reality.
There are many subjects in which Rabbi Shagar was involved, whe...
Time after time, just like the scouts in this week's Torah portion, we put all our efforts in an attempt to avoid facing reality.
There are many subjects in which Rabbi Shagar was involved, when he was forced to cast away the lies that waited in a far corner, for him as for us.
Among other things, Rabbi Shagar taught us how to look at death during the sensitive and delicate time of consolation for mourning. We often try to call upon complex elements of faith such as resurrection of the dead in our attempts to offer condolences. When we abandon our attempts at direct and personal talk in this way, it often leads to our espousing platitudes. And in this way we miss the main point, because the truth is that death is in the end really part of our lives.
From our point of view a death provides an opportunity to strengthen the bond with the one who was with us and has gone. We must not flee from the truth and try to get around it. Our pain can open up deep channels of our relationship with the dead person. We must continue talking to the person and not just talking about him or her. It is not only in heaven that the soul remains, it also remains in that it gives each and every one of us the opportunity to allow the dead person to continue to speak through us and to maintain our contact with him.
Every person comes into contact with death. The question is whether the one who has passed away remains ''a person'' to whom it is still possible to turn or not. For example, are we still able to turn to Rabbi Shagar, and ask:
What did you mean when you said that you have a spiritual illness? What can this statement teach us about ourselves? Are we healthy or not?
Every one of us will die one day, we will all reach a terminal illness, since the present world can be viewed as a hospital for the world to come. And that is why the healthy people continue to recite the prayer about ''healing the sick.''
It was written in a newspaper that everybody has a notice about his own death waiting for him in the mail, and that some people, as you did, receive this letter at home. You walked around with the letter in your pocket, you kept moving around, because you had a healthy mind and a merciful viewpoint, and you knew exactly what is waiting for everybody in the mail. And this is the illness and the movement of the great spirit which can understand from one end of the world to the other, without fear of receiving the notice, in order to leave the temporary sick body, such that it will be worthy of you to become sick and die.
We remember you as a very special soul, Rabbi Shagar.
(A memorial ceremony for Rabbi Shagar will be held at Binyenei Haumah in Jerusalem, on Thursday 23 Sivan (26/6) at 19:00.)
|
|
|
|
|
Using a Ladle as a Strainer - by Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Rimon, Rabbi of Southern Alon Shevut and a teacher
(Halachic Sources
/Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon)
It seems clear that a ladle with holes in it should not be used on Shabbat because this is an act of filtering using a utensil (and it is therefore included in the prohibition of borair – separati...
It seems clear that a ladle with holes in it should not be used on Shabbat because this is an act of filtering using a utensil (and it is therefore included in the prohibition of borair – separating food from waste). The question is whether this is a utensil that is meant specifically for filtering and is therefore a Torah prohibition or a utensil which is not specifically meant for filtration and is therefore prohibited only by a rabbinical decree.
On one hand, such a ladle is always used to strain food, and it would therefore seem to fit the definition of a utensil used for filtration. On the other hand, it may be that the main use of the ladle is to hold the food, while the filtration is just an added convenience. In other words, it might be that while the ladle is used as a filter it also serves other more important functions. In Responsa Or Letzion, Rabbi Ben-Tzion Aba Shaul writes that such a spoon is only forbidden by a rabbinical decree (volume 2, 31:10). (This opinion is based on the reasoning that the spoon can be viewed as an extension of the hand which is being used to serve the food and not as a utensil at all.)
But this approach might still leave us with a rabbinical prohibition to use a ladle with holes. In ''Shevitat Hashabbat,'' Rabbi Yitzchak Malchan permits use of such a ladle. He explains that since the solid contents can be eaten together with the soup, the mixture has the status of clear water, which can also be drunk without first filtering it, and indeed this is what most people do. Or Letzion also allows using such a ladle since this is a case of removing the good food from the bad, aside from other existing opinions that borair of liquids is permitted.
On the other hand, this is forbidden in Shemirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (volume 3, notes 156-159), because it is not like water which has a small amount of contaminants. In that case, the water is the main substance and the additional material can be ignored. However, in the case of a soup with vegetables, both the solid and the liquid are important, and they are thus two different species, so that the definition of clear water does not apply. (This is true even though the two components might be eaten together. Otherwise, it would never be prohibited to separate two different types of food.)
Another important element is related to the question of separating good food from waste. Even if we accept that a ladle is not defined as a utensil, it is not clear whether removing the vegetables from soup is considered taking out the good food. From one point of view, this is indeed what is happening. However, if our main action is to wait until the unwanted drops fall from the ladle, aren't we then removing the waste material from the good food?
When the situation is viewed in this way, there might even be a problem in holding a regular spoon close to the wall of a pot (for example, in an attempt to remove only noodles without the soup) – here again what we want to do is remove the waste material from the good food (Rabbi Auerbach in Shemirat Shabbat K'Hilchata suggests that this might even be considered as the use of a utensil). What is clearly permitted is to pour off the upper layer of clear liquid, since there is no mixture at the upper level where the spoon is.
Thus, one who wants to extract specific vegetables from a soup (especially without retaining any liquid) should use a regular spoon or a fork, so that he is clearly taking the good food away from the waste. There is also no problem in putting a spoon or a ladle in the top layer of liquid in order to remove the liquid alone (this is clearly extracting the good food from the waste and it does not make use of the wall of the pot).
In summary: It is best not to use a ladle with holes in it because this might entail the prohibition of borair. (While there are some opinions that this is permitted, one should certainly not hold it up in the air to allow the liquid to drain off.) It is also best not to hold a ladle next to the wall of the pot in order to let the liquid drain away (even using a regular ladle, without holes) since this is an act of removing the waste from the good food (and it might even be considered borair with a utensil). Sometimes it is most convenient to take vegetables out of a soup using a regular spoon (or a fork) since this makes it easy to remove specific solid foods without any liquid. It is also permitted to put a ladle in the top layer of soup in order to fill it with liquid.
|
|
|
|
|
In the Footsteps of Otniel - by the Kefar Etzion Field School
(Touring The Land)
In the books of Shoftim (1:10-19) and Yehoshua (15:13-19) we are told about the fulfillment of the Almighty's promise to Kalev to give him a heritage. Kalev is given possession of Chevron and its ...
In the books of Shoftim (1:10-19) and Yehoshua (15:13-19) we are told about the fulfillment of the Almighty's promise to Kalev to give him a heritage. Kalev is given possession of Chevron and its surroundings and then reaches Devir, where he declares that he will give his daughter Achsa as a wife to any man that conquers the city. In the book of Yehoshua he seems to be given credit for conquering Devir, but the one who really captured it was Kalev's brother, Otniel Ben Kenaz.
Where is Devir? At first the archeologist Albright suggested that it was at the site of Tel Beit Marsis, in the Shefeila – the coastal region. Based on this proposal a kibbutz to the west of the Tel was called Devirah. But based on geographical evidence it has become clear that this suggestion is wrong, since Devir is described as being on a mountain, while Beit Marsis is on the coastal plain.
As part of an archeological survey performed by Moshe Kochavi in the area of Yehuda after the Six Day War, a fortified wall from the time of Yehoshua was discovered in Churvat Rabud, about one and a half kilometers southwest of Otniel, in the southern Chevron hills. This discovery, in addition to the similarity of the names Rabud and Devir, have led current researchers to identify the place as the biblical site of Devir.
This suggestion was given strong support when two wells were found about 3 km north of the site, at Nachal Alkah: Bir Alkah El Pokni and Bir Alkah A-Tachti (Upper and Lower Alkah Wells). After Devir was conquered, Achsa went to her father and asked for a source of water, ''Since you gave me land in the Negev, therefore give me springs of water'' [Yehoshua 15:19]. And Kalev responded by giving her upper and lower springs.
This week we will take a trip to the site of Devir. Because of security restraints we will be forced to look at the site from the settlement Otniel.
How do we get there? About six km south of Kiryat Arba we turn south past the settlement of Beit Chagai, and we turn left to Otniel. At the first junction we turn right. We enter the yeshiva building and go to the outlook point, from which we can see Churbat Rabud, the site of Devir that was conquered by Otniel.
We can finish our trip by studying in the Beit Midrash, following Otniel's lead. According to Rabbi Abahu, many halachot were forgotten during the mourning period for Moshe, but ''Otniel Ben Kenaz brought them back based on his learning expertise'' [Temurah 16a].
(Written by: Mos Jacobs)
Summer Activities for Youth in the field school:
A Meandering Journey from Gush Etzion to Jerusalem, for students after seventh and eighth grades - Session 1: 11-14 Tammuz (14-17/7); Session 2: 25-28 Tammuz (28-31/7)
A Meandering Journey from the Yehuda Plains to the summit of Gush Etzion, for students after ninth and tenth grades – Session 1: 4-7 Tammuz (7-10/7); Session 2: 18-21 Tammuz (21-24/7).
''Etzion Scouts'' – a week of nature, hikes, and adventure – for students after sixth and seventh grades – Session 1: 4-7 Tamuz (7-10/7); Session 2: 18-21 Tammuz (21-24/7).
Rappelling Workshop for students after ninth to twelfth grades – Session 1: 4-7 Tammuz (7-10/7); Session 2: 2-6 Av (3-7/8).
Archeological Digging in the Jumjum Ruins, for students after eighth to twelfth grades – 24 Tammuz - 19 Av (27/7-20/8).
Contact: Kefar Etzion Field School, 02-9935133, www.k-etzion.co.il
|
|
|
|
|
"For the Tribe of Efraim, Hoshaya Bin Nun" - by Rabbi Amnon Bazak, Yeshivat Har Etzion
(Starting Point)
There is a problem with respect to the list of men sent to scout out the land. First, it is written, ''For the tribe of Efraim, Hoshaya Bin Nun'' [Bamidbar 13:8], and only afterwards is it written...
There is a problem with respect to the list of men sent to scout out the land. First, it is written, ''For the tribe of Efraim, Hoshaya Bin Nun'' [Bamidbar 13:8], and only afterwards is it written, ''For the tribe of Yosef, for the tribe of Menasheh, Gadi Ben Sodi'' [13:11]. This is difficult in two ways. First, it would seem most reasonable to list the tribe of Efraim after the words ''for the tribe of Yosef,'' since this is relevant to both of the tribes of Yosef. This is indeed what appears in the beginning of the book of Bamidbar: ''For the sons of Yosef: for Efraim, Elishama Ben Amihud; for Menasheh, Gamliel Ben Pedahtzur'' [1:10]. In addition, the sequence of the tribes in the current list is problematic. In principle, it seems to be similar to the list in Chapter 1, based on the order of the births of the sons, divided according to the sequence of their births and their mothers: It starts with Leah's oldest children (without Levi, who is omitted from the lists) – Reuven, Shimon, Yehuda, and Yissachar, and ending with the four sons of the maidservants – Dan, Asher, Naftali, and Gad. However, the sequence of the four middle tribes is not clear. In Chapter 1, the order seems logical: Starting with Leah's fifth son, Zevulun, then Rachel's children – Yosef's sons Efraim and Menasheh, and then Binyamin. However, in this week's Torah portion Efraim is mentioned first, followed by Binyamin and Zevulun, with Menasheh at the end. What is the reason for this modified sequence?
Evidently the two questions can be answered at the same time. The tribe of Efraim was moved forward in the list and separated from Menasheh because of the important status of its representative, Yehoshua Bin Nun. It can be assumed that from the very beginning Moshe feared what might happen in the future, which is the reason that he changed Hoshaya's name to Yehoshua (13:16 – see Rashi, based on the Midrash: ''Let G-d rescue you from the plans of the scouts''). The modified sequence was meant to emphasize that one man among the scouts was unique, the only one who was well known before the beginning of the affair – Yehoshua Bin Nun, Moshe's servant and the great warrior against Amalek. Moshe hoped that Yehoshua's presence among the other scouts would influence them not to be afraid of the existing inhabitants, including Amalek among others.
This approach can also help explain another difficulty with the passage. When G-d turned to Moshe, He told him to send ''one man for every tribe of their fathers, every one a leader among them'' [13:1]. That is, we would have expected the list of scouts to consist of the leaders of the tribes, already known to us from the Torah portions of Bamidbar and Nasso. But instead of the tribal leaders, every ''Nassi,'' Moshe sends ''prominent men, leaders of Bnei Yisrael'' [13:2]. Why didn't he send the real leaders of the tribes? Evidently this was because of Moshe's desire to send Yehoshua, something that he could not have done if he had sent the formal heads of the tribes.
As we know, in the end Yehoshua was not successful in influencing the scouts and the nation as a whole. It was first necessary for the generation to be replaced before Yehoshua could assume the role of the leader of Bnei Yisrael and bring them into the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|