Parashas Bo 5772- Taking Egypt out of the Jews- The Korban Pesach

Posted on March 11, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Bo 5772 PDF

Taking Egypt out of the Jews- The Korban Pesach

Taste of Parasha

The Jewish nation was physically ready to be taken out of Egyptbut how was Egyptgoing to be taken out of the Jews?  How would their mindset be changed from that of a slave to that of a Jew?  The Jews were accustomed to thinking of themselves as lowly insignificant people.  How were they to be re-educated to think of themselves as honorable and respectable people, the nation of G-d?  The answer lies in a series of commandments given to us while waiting at the brink of freedom.  The Chinuch writes that by acting in a dignified manner one accustoms himself to living in a dignified manner.  G-d gave us many Mitzvos, “K’dei Lezakos es Yisroel (in order to give merit to the Jews).”   The Chinuch understands this to mean that in order to become a dignified people we are given constant opportunities to carry ourselves with a regal bearing.  When we perform Mitzvos we become exalted through our exalted actions.  This is true  with regard to all Mitzvos in general and specifically to the Mitzvos given to the Jewish Nation on the eve of our redemption.  Most notably is the commandment not to break the bone of the Pascal lamb.  By simply pulling away from the desire for another morsel of meat that could be reached by breaking a bone, we not only left Egypt but Egypt left us.

Taste of Talmud

Does the prohibition against breaking a bone of the Pascal lamb apply to a bone without any meat on it? This question is addressed in the Talmud in tractate Pesachim (84a). The majority opinion is that from the extra word, “bo” (in it) in Exodus, Chapter 12, Verse 46, we can derive that as long as the offering is valid one is prohibited from breaking any of its bones.  Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi disagrees.  He bases himself on the fact that this prohibition is said after the command to eat the meat.  Therefore, he understands that one only transgresses this prohibition if he is breaking a bone in order to facilitate the eating of the meat. This is the way Rav Ashi understands the debate between these Tanaim: They are discussing the law of a completely meatless bone.   Ravina is of the opinion that the debate between the sages and Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi  involved a different question:  They were debating whether or not a bone with a piece of meat on it may be broken at another spot where there is no meat.  With regard to this dilemma, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi disagrees with the sages.  The sages say it is prohibited to break any bone that has meat on it even at a spot not covered with meat.  Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi opines that as long as there is no meat at the point of the break, it is permissible to break it.   With respect to the question of a completely meatless bone, he says there is no debate whatsoever and it is permitted to be broken.

Taste of Halacha

If we were to look at the opinions before us to try to determine the final Halacha, what would we conclude?  One of the rules in determining the final Halacha is that we follow the opinion of a teacher when he has a difference of opinion with his student. We would therefore have to conclude that it is prohibited to break the bone of the Pascal lamb, even if it was completely meatless, because that is the way Rav Ashi understood the majority opinion, and he was the teacher of Ravina.  However, the Rambam decides the Halacha in accordance with the view- point of Ravina that there is no prohibition  regarding the  breaking of a completely meatless bone.  Why does the Rambam deviate from the classical rules for determining the halacha in this case?The Minchas Chinuch suggests that the Rambam bases his decision on the fact that Rabbi Yochanan sides with the opinion of Ravina with respect to the law of a bone with meat on one side of it.  This is indicative of the fact that he is in concordance with the opinion of Ravina. Once Ravina and Rabbi Yochanan are in agreement, it is appropriate to side with that opinion also with respect to the law of a completely meatless bone because these two laws are based on the same verse and are inter-dependent.

Posted in Bo | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Bo 5772- Taking Egypt out of the Jews- The Korban Pesach

Parashas Va’eira 5772- Saying “Thank You” Like you Mean it: Hakaras Hatov

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Va’eira 5772 PDF

Saying “Thank You” like you Mean It: Hakaras Hatov

Taste of Parasha

Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev arrived at a small town one evening without a place to rest.  Being that he was not known to the people of this town, no one welcomed him to stay overnight in their home.  Having nowhere else to turn, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak approached a small, run down home at the edge of town and asked if he could stay there over night.  The poverty stricken man gladly welcomed R’ Levi Yitzchak into his home and graciously shared all of his meager belongings.  Many years later, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak found himself in need of lodging in that same town.  In stark contrast to his previous visit, upon entering into the town on this visit he was recognized as being the great scholar and leader of the town of Berditchev.  Everyone vied for the opportunity to have Rabbi Levi Yitzchak spend the night in their home.  Much to their surprise, the great Rabbi responded, “I owe a debt of gratitude to the simple man at the edge of town who took me in many years ago.  Therefore, it is in his home that I will stay.”   The attribute of gratitude is one of the pillars of human society.  Without it, we would be insensitive individuals; with it, we establish satisfying relationships with others. It was this attribute that prevented Moshe Rabbeinu from striking the river and the earth that had protected him in his youth.

Taste of Talmud

According to the opinion of Bais Shammai, the first of Shevat is the beginning of the year for trees.  Bais Hillel is of the opinion that the new year for trees begins on the fifteenth of Shevat (Rosh Hashana 2a).  This dispute has ramifications with regard to the law governing the fruit produced by a fruit bearing tree in its first three years, halachicaly termed “Orla”. “Orla”, literally translated means covered up.  In regards to fruit trees, the Torah writes, “For three years the fruit of the tree shall be Orla to you, it shall not be eaten (Leviticus 19:33).” The Ramban lists two different ideas to help us understand the significance of this law.   Firstly, the produce of a young tree is not healthy.  Secondly, the Torah gives us a number of commandments which train us to have good attributes.  One of the most important and basic of all positive attributes is the attribute of gratitude.  To this end, G-d commanded us not to partake of the fruit of a new tree until we first use its fruit to serve him.  In as much as G-d wants us to learn to be grateful, He also teaches us that when we show our gratitude it should not be with low quality items.  Therefore, since the produce of a young tree is not tasty, it is unfit to be used to show our gratitude to the Almighty.  So, for the first three years of a tree, its fruit are not eaten (Orla). On the fourth year, when it first becomes worthy for use in the service of G-d, the produce is brought to Yerushalayim and is used to serve G-d in His holy city (Neta Revai). In this way, we are trained in the significance and proper expression of the attribute of gratitude

Taste of Halacha

How do we calculate the age of a tree?  At which point are its fruit permitted for consumption?  The Talmud (Rosh Hashana 9a) teaches us that a tree is deemed to have been alive for a calendar year as long as it was planted thirty days before Rosh Hashana of that year.  Its fruit, however, are deemed to be Orla, and therefore prohibited until after Tu’ B’Shevat (the fifteenth of the month of Shevat) passes three times; in accordance with the opinion of Bais Hillel.

The question arises: If a tree were planted well before Rosh Hashana, does the owner still have to wait until after Tu’ B’Shevat on the third year to partake of this tree or is he allowed to partake of it right after Rosh Hashana? The Rambam is of the opinion that, in this case, he does not have to wait until after Tu’ B’Shevat, where-as the Ran is of the opinion that, even in this scenario, the fruits are prohibited until after the new year for the trees has passed, Tu’ B’Shevat  (YOD 294:5).

Posted in Va'eira | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Va’eira 5772- Saying “Thank You” Like you Mean it: Hakaras Hatov

Parashas Shemos 5772- Adultery in Jewish Law

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Shemos 5772 PDF

Adultery in Jewish Law

Taste of Parasha

“They did not listen to Pharoh and they gave life to the children.”  Yocheved and Miriam did more than just disobey the command of Pharoh.  They extended themselves on behalf of the Jewish children.  These midwives would pray that every child would be completely healthy.   This can all be derived from the words ‘and they gave life to the children’, so why does the Torah add, “and they did not listen to Pharoh”?  The Medrash teaches us that this is referring to their refusal of an entirely different request made of them by Pharoh.  Pharoh had seduced them to have an intimate relationship with him.  Their refusal to him put them at risk for their own lives, yet they did not succumb.  They were willing to take the risk of the consequences for saying, “No” to Pharoh.  This is an example of the great mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem.  In regards to all Mitzvoth, we are commanded, “V’chay bahem,” to live with them, meaning they are given to us to live with them and not to cause us to die because of them.  Only in reference to idolatry, adultery, and murder are we obligated to give our lives rather than transgress one of these cardinal sins.

Taste of Talmud and Halacha

What is the reason that one may never violate these three cardinal sins, even on the consequence of death? We might suggest that it is because they are such severe sins that the Torah does not allow us to violate them under any circumstances.  Alternatively, despite the general principle of, “v’chai bahem” perhaps the Torah wished to give us an opportunity to make a  kiddush Hashem by choosing to die rather than violating the Torah, and it chose these three mitzvos to provide that opportunity.  The Ba’al Ha-Ma’or argues that the only reason for the rule of ye’hareg v’al ya’avor (give your life rather than transgress) is, that the gentile’s intention is to make the Jew violate them, and one must therefore die, “al kiddush Hashem” (in sanctification of G-d’s name).  If his intention is for his own pleasure, however, even these sins would be permitted. For example, Queen Esther was taken by force to the palace, and this was public knowledge, but since Achashverosh acted for his own pleasure, Esther’s actions were permitted.  According to this argument, although the general rule of, “ye’hareg v’al ya’avor” is to create a kiddush Hashem, the only situation in which this makes a difference is by adultery or incest, which may be compelled either for the purpose of pleasure, or, to force the Jew to violate the Torah. Idol worship will always be ye’hareg v’al ya’avor, because the coercer in this case never acts for his own benefit; the point is always to have the Jew commit a sin.  Conversely, murder,  is always for the coercer’s benefit, so it must be forbidden for a reason other than kiddush Hashem – the severity of the aveira. The Nimmukei Yosef and the Milchamos Hashem argue on the Ba’al Ha-Ma’or, asserting that all three  prohibitions carry with them the command of “ye’hareg v’al ya’avor” for the same reason  – their severity.  Because they are such terrible sins, there is never a loop hole to do them; the rule of  v’chai bahem only applies to  aveiros that are not as severe. The aspect of  kiddush Hashem noted by the gemara results because one demonstrates willingness to die rather than violate the Torah, but that is not the impetus behind the rule. Accordingly, the intention of the coercer makes no difference in a case of  adultery; it is forbidden, regardless, because of its severity.  It is  interesting to note that on the one hand, the Rambam stresses that the rule of ye’hareg v’al ya’avor is a fulfillment of the mitzva of kiddush Hashem, as the Ba’al Ha-Ma’or indicates, while on the other hand, he stresses that the rule applies even if the gentile’s intention is his own pleasure, as the Nimmukei Yosef and Ramban argue. The Rambam is offering a middle ground  – once we are commanded in the  mitzva of  kiddush Hashem, these sins are prohibited under all circumstances, because of their severity, as well.

Posted in Shemos | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Shemos 5772- Adultery in Jewish Law

Parashas Vayechi 5772- Putting our Mind over Matter

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Vayechi 5772 PDF

Putting our Mind over Matter

Taste of Parasha

One of the students of Rava understood from him that the correct blessing to be recited prior to the Mitzvah of checking for chametz is L’vaer chametz to destroy the chametz.  Another student understood the lesson differently; he understood that the correct formulation of the blessing should be Al Biur chametz, on the burning of the chametz.  The Talmud (Pesachim 7b) explains the basis for this dispute.  All agree that a blessing associated with a Mitzvah must be said prior to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah.  In addition everyone agrees that the wording of the blessing must have the connotation that Mitzvah is about to be fulfilled.  In this regard, all agree that the wording, “to destroy chametz” contains the proper connotation that the destruction of the chametz is about to take place.   They disagree as to whether or not the formulation, “on the destruction of chametz” has that connotation. This formula contains a double meaning on the one hand it sounds like the destruction of the chametz has already begun while on the other hand it also has the connotation that the chametz will be destroyed in the near future.

Taste of Halacha

Interestingly enough, the Halacha follows the opinion that says we should use the wording that has a double connotation.  Rav Elchanan Wasserman Zt”l, Hy”d, asks, “Wouldn’t it be better to use the wording that cannot be misunderstood?”  He answers, that in truth, the destruction of the chametz has already begun even before the blessing has been made.  As soon as a person has made up in his mind that he will destroy the chametz the process has begun.  Hence, the wording of the blessing on the destruction of chametz, with its double connotation is actually more accurate, as it conveys the truth that the process has already begun.   With this concept he answers a difficulty in the words of the Rambam in regards to the laws of Bris Milah.  Why does the Rambam say that a father recites a different blessing than would a mohel performing the act on his behalf?  The answer is that when a father is performing the circumcision, there isn’t a two-step process.  Until he actually performs the circumcision, nothing has transpired.  The Mohel, on the other hand, is performing the second stage of the Milah process, once the father has given him the go ahead.  The Mohel, therefore, recites a blessing which has the connotation that the Milah process has begun.

Taste of Parasha

“And Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years, and he died at the age of 147.”  What is the Torah teaching us in clearly stating the number of years which Yaakov lived in Egypt?   The Nesivos Shalom answers that the number seventeen is the numerical value of the word Tov good.  In explicitly writing the number of years Yaakov lived in Egypt the Torah is conveying to us the good effect which Yaakov had upon that land.  Our sages teach what it was so good about Yaakov’s presence in Egypt.  Yaakov is the founding father of serious Torah study.  He brought the goodness of Torah, the truth of Torah, the purity of Torah to Egypt and with it was successful in beginning the process of vanquishing the evil.  He succeeded in overriding the physical drives and adulations of the culture that surrounded his descendants in Egypt.  He taught them that with a mind that is refined and elevated with Torah study all of the empty physical vises which they may come in contact with are as nothing.  With his goodness he vanquished the bad and made it possible for us to do the same.   All we have to do is apply ourselves to the study of Torah.


Posted in Vayechi | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Vayechi 5772- Putting our Mind over Matter

Parashas Vayigash 5772- Making a Statement- Shema

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Vayigash 5772 PDF

Making a Statement- Shema

Taste of Talmud

“Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.”  A Jew is obligated to recite these words daily.  Is it sufficient to merely recite this declaration or are we expected to give some thought to what we are saying? There are three levels of intent which need to be clarified.  The most basic level is, to focus on what you are doing, as opposed  to doing it as an afterthought.  In the case of Shema, this level of concentration would preclude a person from fulfilling his obligation while he happens to be proofreading a Torah in the section of Shema.  The second level of intent is to intend to fulfill the positive commandment of reciting the Shema as was commanded to us by G-d in his Torah.  There is a difference of opinion amongst our sages whether or not this is required.  The opinion of the Ritva is that such intent is not necessary.  The third level of intent is to have a keen understanding of the meaning of the words which are being recited.  In regards to the recitation of the Shema, this requires one to be fully aware that he is accepting upon himself the yoke of heaven and the truth that the G-d of the Jews, who took us out of Egypt, is the One and Only true and everlasting G-d (Ritva to Berachos 13a).

Taste of Halacha

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 60:4) sides with the opinion of the Rosh and Baha”g who disagree with the Ritva.  He says that a person must have specific intent prior to the performance or recitation of any Mitzvah.  He must think to himself, “I am about to fulfill a command of G-d with my words and actions.”  The Mishna Berura (ad. loc.) qualifies this halacha in a number of points.  To begin with, the requirement to have specific intent is only true in regards to a Biblical commandment but not in regards to a Mitzvah instituted by our sages.  In addition, when a person has come to shul to pray, this constitutes specific intent to fulfill the mitzvah of Shema.  Furthermore, in the event that a Mitzvah must be repeated due to lack of intent, the accompanying blessing is not repeated.  Finally, ideally, one should always focus and concentrate prior to performing a Mitzvah on what he is about to do.

Taste of Parasha

The Medrash teaches us, that as long as Yosef was lost, Yaakov was inconsolable.  Yaakov knew that his mission on this world was to father the twelve tribes of Israel.  Only when all of their varied strengths were unified would the divine presence be able to rest among the Jewish nation.  With the loss of Yosef, Yaakov was worried that he had failed in founding the Jewish nation.  When he meets Yosef, he immediately proclaims, “Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.”  Rav Shlomo Wolbe explains that Yaakov was proclaiming the fact that now the Jewish nation was unified and able to be the catalyst for spiritual growth and connection to the One and only true G-d; the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The divine presence did not rest among the tribes of Jacob until this unity was achieved.  The Medrash teaches us that after we call upon our fellow Jews to unite as one to proclaim G-d is one, we immediately mention G-d’s name.  This is a level even greater than the angels who must say the word kadosh three times prior to enunciating the name of G-d.  This may be why our sages teach us that in the merit of saying Shema Jews are victorious in battle.  By saying Shema Yisroel with the proper intent, we draw together to serve G-d, as one.

Posted in Vayigash | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Vayigash 5772- Making a Statement- Shema

Parashas Mikaitz 5772- Chanukah: Commemoration or Perpetuation

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Parashas Mikaitz 5772 PDF

Chanukah:  Commemoration or Perpetuation

Taste of Talmud and Halacha

Where can you find the laws of Chanukah discussed in the Talmud?  In Tractate Shabbos 21a-24a.  Why Tractate Shabbos?  The discussion begins with a comparison of the types of wicks that may be used for Shabbos versus the ones that may be used for Chanukah.  There are three opinions with respect to the wicks of Chanukah.  1) Rav Huna is of the opinion that you must use the same type of wicks that you use for your Shabbos lights, which is to say that they must be top quality wicks that are able to burn well without any intervention on your part, as it is forbidden on Shabbos to adjust or rekindle the flames.  2) Rav Chisda is of the opinion that you may use  grade B wicks for the Chanukah lights that are lit during the week but  top quality wicks must be used for the Chanukah lights kindled before Shabbos Chanuka.  3) Rav Zaira is of the opinion that you may use grade B wicks for lighting your Menorah both during the week and on Erev Shabbos Chanukah.   The Talmud grapples with the challenge as to how to explain the logic and reasoning behind this dispute and the resulting differences in opinion.  Below we will explore how Rava and The Bais Efraim explain the root of this dispute.  Rava understands that this dispute stems from the issue of whether or not there is an obligation to rekindle the flames of the Menorah if they are accidentally extinguished.  The Rishonim grapple with the challenge as to how Rava saw this as the core of the difference in opinions.  Rashi elaborates on the reasoning of each of the above mentioned opinions. Regarding Rav Huna’s reasoning he explains: Rav Huna is of the opinion that it is necessary to rekindle a flame that becomes accidentally extinguished, therefore if you were to use grade B wicks for all of Chanukah you may be negligent and not rekindle them if they become extinguished. Rav Chisda’s opinion is that it is not necessary to rekindle an extinguished flame and that you may derive pleasure from the lights of Chanukah, therefore he prohibits the use of grade B wicks only on Shabbos lest you come to adjust the flame to derive pleasure, and in doing so thereby violate the laws of Shabbos. R’ Zaira, on the other hand, is of the opinion that there is no reason to rekindle an extinguished flame, and that it is not permissible to have pleasure from the Chanukah lights, therefore there is no reason to prohibit using grade B wicks throughout all of Chanukah. The Bais Efraim explains the logic behind the basis for the dispute between these sages as stemming from the issue of pirsumei nissah (to publicize the miracle of Chanukah.  He explains that Rav Huna understands that the obligation of pirsumei nissah is not fulfilled by merely lighting the Chanukah lights, but rather by allowing them to  burn for at least a half hour after sunset.  This is why he says that you are obligated to rekindle them if they go out.  Rav Chisda and Rav Zaira are of the opinion that pirsumei nissah is fulfilled upon lighting the candles, which is consistent with their opinion that it is not necessary to rekindle an extinguished flame.  Practical Halacha follows the majority opinion, that the obligation of pirsumei nissah is in fact fulfilled at the moment of the kindling. Therefore, in practice, it would not be necessary to rekindle the Chanukah lights if they accidentally become extinguished.

Taste of Chanukah

The holiday of Chanukah was instituted by our sages to commemorate a series of events that led to the rededication of the Holy Bais Hamikdash.  There are many days upon which miracles occurred that the sages did not institute a holiday to commemorate those events.  What was it about these events and the subsequent rededication of theTemple that is so important to the conscience, the heart, and soul of the Jewish nation that requires a yearly “Festival of Lights?”

Surprisingly, the Shulchan Aruch says that on Chanukah it is not necessary to have a holiday meal.  What! am I hearing right? A Jewish Holiday without an obligation to eat matzo balls and kugel?  Is this Jewish!?  OK, OK, so the Shulchan Aruch does allow for the fact that there is a slight Mitzvah in eating a dinner in order to make note of the fact that the Temple was rededicated.  This, however, is not the essence of Chanukah.  The essence of Chanukah, he tells us, is to sing songs of thanks to G-d and to praise G-d for the fact that it was on these days that we were once again able to observe the commandments of the Torah.  The Greeks and their Hellenist corroborators tried to undermine the Jewish nation not by cutting our throats but by pulling the Torah and Mitzvos out from under us.  They loved the beauty and grandeur of the Temple, the wisdom and sophistication of the Jewish mind.  Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg Zt”l described the actions of the Hellenists succinctly when he said, “The Hellenists adapted very well to the Greek culture, they adapted so well in fact that they adapted themselves out of existence”. The balance and symmetry of the body was displayed in the most remarkable ways in their gymnasiums and coliseums.  All the blessings of the physical world were hijacked from their G-dly intended purpose to a debased and immoral culture that promoted the body to the exclusion of G-d.  They were brash and brazen.  The Greek culture was insidiously undermining the underpinnings of the Jewish nation by promoting that people could keep all of the external aspects of Judaism, as long as they, “Write on the horn of your cows that you have no portion in the G-d of Israel”.  They made decrees that defiled the holy and deep inner world of the Jewish soul.  They prohibited the use of the mikvah and defiled the Holy Temple so that although we technically still had theTemple in our land, and we still had Jewish families they could not function.  All of the abundance that we had was not able to be used in the service of G-d.

All of this changed when a few devoted and pure Kohanim from the family of the Chashmonaim, descendants of Mattityahu the Kohen Gadol, made a stand.  They began to counter the efforts of the Greeks and through their selfless acts, with the help of G-d, were able to turn everything around.  They brought back purity and holiness to the Jewish nation and rekindled our souls.

So, Chanukah is not merely a commemoration of a miracle but rather an integral update in our spirituality which facilitates the success of the destiny of the Jewish people.   The Chashmonaim taught us how to hold our ground against the onslaught of a culture steeped in the physical veneer of this world.  We learn from them to see beneath the surface and to be in tune with the G-dly essence, the inner light of this world.  The Holiday of Chanukah is essentially the Holiday that gives us, the Jewish nation, the tools we need for our perpetuation.  It is only through the commemoration of these events that we will be able to achieve the manifestation of our nation.   Only by internalizing the lessons of the Chashmonaim will we be able to move beyond matzo balls and kugel and connect to the light that is within us, the light of our neshama, and the light of the Torah.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Mikaitz 5772- Chanukah: Commemoration or Perpetuation

Parashas Lech Lecha 5772- Taking the Plunge- Bitachon

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Lech Lecha 5772 PDF

Taking the Plunge- Bitachon

Taste of Talmud

The first step of the Jewish marriage process is called “Kiddushin,” which literally means to become holy or to separate oneself from the mundane.  In English it loosely corresponds to what we would call, “betrothal.”  In our time this state of holiness is created when a man gives a woman a ring under the Chupah. The first Mishna in Tractate Kiddushin says that a woman will agree to become betrothed if a man gives her a significant amount of money (a perutah) or with an object of equal value.   Tosafos comments that there are two other situations in which Talmudic law permits the use of an object of monetary equivalence in place of direct monetary payment.  These two situations are: a) For redeeming a slave and b) for paying a fiscal obligation incurred due to damages.  Tosafos adds that even though in regards to betrothal the verses only allow for the use of money, the Talmud is telling us that we can derive from the laws of damages that when money is required to make a payment, it is sufficient to use a monetary equivalent.  The Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eidels Zt”l) asks: It should follow then, that if the laws of damages are the source for this law, that we must follow the specifications given by the laws of damages for the use of a monetary equivalent.  Are we to learn from here that if a man would want to betroth a woman through a gift of land he may only use a piece of land that is of superior quality, as is the case in the laws of damages?

Taste of Halacha

My Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, Zt”l, answered in the following manner.  We have to ask ourselves what is the reason the Torah requires the use of superior quality land in paying for damages?  The Halacha is that if the defendant has money or chattel he must use that to pay and cannot use land.  Why?  It is clear from this law that when the Torah allows the use of a monetary equivalent that it is not redefining money simply as anything with value.  Rather, it is saying that one who damages another must return the amount of the loss to the one who was damaged in the best way possible.  This is because the damager owes a debt to him that the damagee would rather not have had to deal with.  Based on this explanation we can understand why when this law is applied to the laws of betrothal the law is different.  There is an integral difference in the reason for the two payments. When a woman agrees to enter into marriage she is doing so willingly and could agree to commit herself to this marriage by means of receiving any object which she values. This is because the man does not owe her anything but rather they are coming to a consensus between the two of them that they want to enter into this bond.  This is unlike the situation with damages where one is receiving the payment due to an undesired occurrence of damage.  Once we know from the laws of damages that a monetary equivalent may be used in place of money, then, when it comes to the laws of betrothal, any object of significant value, that the bride and groom agree upon, could be used to create this holy bond.

Taste of Parasha

Our fore father Abraham set the course for the Jewish nation through his exemplary service of G-d.  He showed himself worthy of becoming the father of the nation of G-d by passing ten tests.  The Medrash asks a peculiar question:  Which of the tests were greater?  Abraham’s willingness to follow the command of “lech lecha,” to relocate to the land of Israel in order to become the progenitor of the Jewish Nation, or, was the willingness to sacrifice his beloved son       (the akeida) the greater demonstration of moral caliber?  On the surface, this does not seem to be a question whatsoever, how can one equate the ability to push aside all logic, and to devotedly (seemingly recklessly) go to sacrifice his one and only beloved son with the seemingly beneficial and innocuous relocation to a land which will be given to him and all of his future generations?  The Nesivos Shalom explains that the command of lech lecha demanded of Abraham a commitment to the constant and daily challenges of personal development. This was not a one time test as was the “Akeida.”  G-d was asking him to be ready and willing to be on a constant voyage of self-discovery.   Abraham was to set the path with this act for every Jew to find his own unique path of service of G-d.   To grow from each and every circumstance which G-d sends our way.  To realize that nothing is by chance and that if we are placed in a certain situation it is because it is for us to use as a way to accomplish our mission on this earth, both from the exciting and happy moments, and, the challenging ones; day in and day out.

Posted in Lech Lecha | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Lech Lecha 5772- Taking the Plunge- Bitachon

Parashas Vayeishev 5772- Courtrooms of the Mind- Do you Really Know what your Friend’s Intentions Were?

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Vayeishev 5772 PDF

Courtrooms of the Mind- Do you Really Know What your Friend’s Intentions Were?

Taste of Talmud

For many of us, our first taste of Talmud came in the form of the topic of yiush (despair).  We studied the opinions of Abayei and Rava as to how and when a person gives up hope on ever retrieving a lost item.  The Talmud concludes that we follow the opinion of Abayei.  According to Abayei an item cannot be removed from your possession without your knowledge.  This is so even if it is to your benefit that it be removed; as is the case with the removal of tithes from ones produce.  The Talmud (Bava Metzia 22a) asks, according to Abayei, why is it that we have a Tosefta that says:  If another Jew removes your tithes for you, the tithing takes effect as soon as you show your approval.  If you did not know about it at the time of the removal that should be a classic situation of yiush shelo midaas – giving up hope without knowledge, which does not work according to Abayei? In an interesting twist of Talmudic structure Abayei is defended by his “rival” Rava!  (When you are searching for the truth, objectively, such things are possible!) Rava proposes, that Abayei would explain the Tosefta as follows: Only when you appointed him as your messenger is another Jew allowed to remove the tithes on your behalf.  Only then does he have the ability to remove the produce from your possession, while you retain veto rights, once you see which produce he chose.

Taste of Halacha

In Shulchan Aruch, YOD, 331:31, it says, “A person may appoint a messenger to remove his tithes for him.  If a Jew removes the tithe for his friend we wait and see what the owner’s reaction will be.  If, upon seeing the produce set aside for the tithes he remarks, ‘you should have taken better ones,’ and there are better ones, then we know he was truly pleased with his friend’s actions and the tithing takes effect.  If there is no better produce, then we know that he was being sarcastic; in which case the tithing was done erroneously and does not take effect.  Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Marshal) makes note that the one separating the tithes must have been appointed as a messenger.  According to the Rambam, however, it is clear that it is not necessary for him to be directly appointed.  Therefore, according to the understanding of the Rambam, the Taz proposes a novel answer to explain the opinion of Abayei.  He says: When it comes to doing Mitzvos, even Abayei does not require the immediate knowledge of the owner in removing something from his property, in order for a Mitzvah to be fulfilled.  It is sufficient that after the fact he is told and he shows his approval.  Since it is for a Mitzvah, it is like we have a directive from every Jew to fulfill a Mitzvah for him; with the limitation that he be pleased with it after the fact.

Taste of Parasha

There is a huge question mark hovering over the entire episode of Yosef and his brothers.  Why? Why did Yosef, no longer a child but a brilliant youngster, presumably capable of understanding the implications of his actions, have chosen to stoke the fires of an already smoking hatred?  Why share the dreams when they were sure to provoke the brothers further?  Rabbi Moshe Eisemann, Shlita, in his book, “The Riddle of the bowing Moon,” illuminates the entire episode in his inimitable way.   In regards to the actions of Yosef, the answer lies in the details of the dream.  By carefully analyzing the words of the dreams Rabbi Eisemann shows that Yosef’s intentions were actually to allay their fears that he would attempt to impose his rule over them.  He wanted to convey to them that he was not a threat to them.  In his dream, it was an image of a sheaf that stood erect. This was a symbol to the strength of moral caliber that he would achieve.  The recognition showed him by the others was not imposed, but recognized of their own accord.  The brothers, in turn, were pawns in the hand of G-d who, as you could see by reading the book, made it that Yosef could lay the ground work for the Jewish nation in exile, and guarantee their return.

Posted in Vayeishev | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Vayeishev 5772- Courtrooms of the Mind- Do you Really Know what your Friend’s Intentions Were?

Parashas Toldos 5772- Education: Whose Responsibility is it?

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Toldos 5772 PDF

Education:  Whose Responsibility is it?

Taste of Talmud

King Yannai had a dilemma. He had murdered all of the Rabbis in his area and now he did not have anyone to lead him in Birkas Hamazon! It just so happened that his queen was the sister of the great sage Rav Shimon ben Shetach whom she had whisked away in order to save him from her husband’s treachery. (Those were difficult times!)
So, she told her husband, King Yannai that if he would not kill her brother she would bring him to recite Birkas Hamazon. Now, the question became: How could he say the blessing for Yannai, if he had not eaten? How could he say, “Blessed is The One Whom we have eaten from His goodness,” when, he did not partake of anything? (Brachos 48a) In clarifying this story, the Talmud relates the rules governing when one Jew may say Birkas Hamazon for another Jew. The Talmud says that as long as one has eaten an amount of grain the size of an olive he may say the blessings for his friend. Rashi asks,
“Why is an amount of grain the size of an olive sufficient to obligate him? This amount only causes a Rabbinic obligation. How could someone who has only a Rabbinic obligation say the blessings for someone who ate a larger amount and therefore has a Biblical obligation? Why is this different than a child who, also, only has a Rabbinic obligation to say Birkas Hamazon, yet, he may not say the blessings on behalf of others?” (Ibid. 20b)

Taste of Halacha

In answering this question, Rashi lays down a fundamental principle in Chinuch (education). Rashi writes that the Rabbinic obligation for a child to say Birkas Hamazon, is not his own; it is his father’s! It is the father’s obligation to train his children to perform Mitzvos. That is why a child may not say the blessing for others, because he does not have any obligation at all. This is different from a man who has his own Rabbinic obligation. Since he does have his own obligation he may say the blessing for others. Tosafos is not satisfied with this answer. He categorically disagrees with Rashi as to the nature of the Mitzvah of Chinuch. Tosafos is of the opinion that it is a child’s own Rabbinic obligation to fulfill all Mitzvos which he is capable of performing. Furthermore, he asks, “How could a person with a lower level obligation cover a person with a higher level of obligation?” Therefore, Tosafos answers, that the difference lies in the fact that an adult has a Biblical obligation to help another Jew fulfill his Mitzvos, which a child does not have. Therefore, as long as he is in a position where he can technically recite the words, “Blessed is The One Whom we have eaten from His goodness,” due to his having eaten an olive size of grain, he may say the blessing for others because of the mitzvah of Arvoos (responsibility for a fellow Jew).

Taste of Parasha

What made Yitzchak the quintessential ben (son) of Avraham Avinu? The word Chinuch means so much more than the transferring of information from one person to another. Rav Shlomo Wolbe, in his ‘must read’ handbook for parents and educators, writes what the fundamental goals of Chinuch are. He refers to them as Tz’micha (growing) and Binyan (building). The information that is transmitted builds the child’s mind and gives him a structure within which to grow. If, however, the child is not shown love and is not given the opportunity to develop his unique talents, then what you have is a robot. Chinuch must include a planting of the seeds of love for learning. This will lead to a lifelong process of development and discovery. It will create a lifelong learner. This is why Yitzchak excelled. He was able to first uncover the physical and metaphorical wells of his father and then discover new ones. He took the love of G-d which Avraham Avinu planted within him and let it grow to new heights. He lived with the Middah of Chessed and developed the Middah of Yirah, service of G-d with awe and reverence.

Posted in Toldos | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Toldos 5772- Education: Whose Responsibility is it?

Parashas Vayeira 5772- A Sheva Brachos- A Time for some Enthusiasm

Posted on March 4, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Vayeira 5772 PDF

A Sheva Brachos- A Time for Some Enthusiasm

Taste of Talmud

The Jewish wedding ceremony includes seven blessings which cover a wide gamut of topics. We praise G-d for creating us and we make note of the loss of the Bais Hamikdash. The blessings also include blessings to the new couple for happiness and success. The Talmud teaches us that whenever there is a quorum of men who dine together with the bride and groom during the first seven days following the wedding they have a Mitzvah to make these blessings. Rabbi Yehuda adds one important caveat. He states that there must be “panim chadashos” (a new face) within the quorum of men (Kesuvos 7b). What does this mean? Tosafos explains, that Rabbi Yehuda is teaching us, that the blessings may only be said, if there is at least one person who was not at the wedding ceremony, dining with them. He qualifies his remarks further by saying that it must be a person whose presence actually adds to the excitement and enthusiasm of the festivities. The Rambam qualifies the rule of panim
chadashos differently. According to the Rambam, Sheva Brachos are said by a quorum of men who are dining with the bride and groom only when there is someone in attendance who did not yet hear the seven blessings recited in honor of this bride and groom. Rav Kulefsky Zt”l, asks: What is the Halachic difference (nafka mina) between these two ways of defining panim chadashos?

Taste of Halacha

Case 1: A friend of the groom, who did not attend the wedding, makes a cameo appearance at a dinner in honor of the new couple. Unfortunately he was not able to stay until the end of the dinner. The
remaining assemblage had attended the wedding. Do they still have a Mitzvah to say the sheva brachos? Rav Kulefsky Zt”l explained that according to Tosafos, the fact that the groom’s friend had been in attendance and enhanced the happiness and enthusiasm of the occasion is reason enough for the entire assemblage to be obligated to recite the blessings again. However, according to the Rambam, they
may not say the blessings, because the only way a new person creates a new obligation is if he is there to hear the blessings, because they are for him. Case 2: The Bride’s nine year old brother and six year old sister were not able to attend the wedding because they were still contagious from having had the chicken pox. Thankfully, three days later they were cleared and were able to attend a festive dinner held in honor of the new couple. Does the attendance of a person who is not obligated in Mitzvos create a new obligation to recite the wedding blessings? Here, too, according to Tosafos, the added excitement of having the bride’s siblings in attendance creates a new obligation on the adults even though they had previously heard the blessings.  However, according to the Rambam, the attendance of a new person only creates a new obligation if that person is obligated in Mitzvos, because it is his obligation, and therefore in this case they would not be able to say the Sheva Berachos.

Taste of Parasha

The Hebrew word “middah” literally translated means measure. Middos, the word used by our sages to refer to character traits, are the way we act and how we think and feel; they are the measure of man. In the classic mussar work entitled “Chovos Halevavos,” the author gives us an appreciation for the importance of developing proper middos. In reference to the trait of Zerizus, a combination of alacrity and enthusiasm, he says, “Zerizus beautifies all the other traits and improves them.” Harav Mordechai Katz Zt”l explains why a person who acts with alacrity and enthusiasm will become a person of refined character traits. A person’s external behavior affects his internal feelings so much so that by acting enthusiastically we develop in our heart a real desire and yearning to do what is good and just. By carrying out good deeds with alacrity, enthusiasm, vigor and vim we develop a love for Hashem. This is why it says in the Medrash that in the merit that Avraham Avinu “ran” to feed his guests, G-d said, “I will attach Myself to him and his descendants.” By running to do this Mitzvah, Avrahm Avinu showed that he had the attribute of Zerizus. Rabbi Katz concludes, “Whereas a lazy person will always find excuses, an enthusiastic person will always find a solution.”

Posted in Vayeira | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Vayeira 5772- A Sheva Brachos- A Time for some Enthusiasm