Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat vayeshev 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Vayeishev-Chanuka 25 Kislev 5764 ************************************************************** This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m., Yitzchak Eliezer Ben Avraham Mordechai Jacobson o.b.m and Yehudit bat HaRav Shmuel Shlomo Carrey 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. ************************************************************************************************************************* Where Did the Troubles Start? Harav Yosef Carmel Chanuka falls out during the time of the Torah portion(s) that deal with Yehuda and Yosef struggles for the leadership and future of the Jewish people. While the Chanuka story ends on a positive note, we cannot ignore the painful period of persecution that our nation underwent at the hands of the Greeks. We should look for the historical weakness in our nation's moral fiber, which the Greeks exploited, and see where the seeds of their decrees were sown. Rav Kook found a connection between Yosef and the Greek persecution. The midrash describes the Greek, anti-religious persecution as follows. " 'And darkness' (Bereishit 1:2)- this is the exile of the Greeks, which darkened the eyes of Yisrael through their decrees. For they [the Greeks] would say to them: 'Write on the horn of a bull that you have no part in the G-d of Israel' " (Bereishit Rabba 2). The horn of a bull refers to the approach of Yosef (which the Greek's misunderstood). This is because we find Yosef described in Moshe's blessing to the tribe as a bull and as possessing horns (Devarim 33:17). Continuing this approach, we can find another connection between Yosef and the beginning of Bnei Yisrael's historical problems. The story of Yosef is connected to the most colossal of all of our sins, chet haegel (the Sin of the Golden Calf). First, of course, there is the family connection between the bull and the calf. But the legacy of Yosef is further connected to the chet ha'egel. The midrash tells of the events that directly preceded the exodus from Egypt. Moshe knew that Bnei Yisrael were bound by oath not to leave Egypt without the remains of Yosef. The Egyptians tried to prevent Yosef's posthumous departure by weighing down his coffin and submerging it in the Nile. In order to extricate the coffin, Moshe went to the banks of the Nile and, after "discussing the matter" with Yosef was able to have the coffin miraculously surface (Tanchuma, Beshalach 2). This midrash is supplemented by another one. Aharon, who was forced to take part in the formation of the Golden Calf, did not form it as an artisan would. Rather, the gold that was collected was thrown into a furnace with the tablet that Moshe had thrown into the Nile to make Yosef's coffin surface, containing the words, "Aleh shor (rise up, bull)." As a result, the calf was miraculously formed (Tanchuma, KI Tisa 19). So if we take a look at the broader picture, we see that the sale of Yosef down to Egypt had several costly consequences. In addition to bringing about Bnei Yisrael's descent to Egypt, the steps to extricate Yosef also had a role in causing the great, historical sin of the Golden Calf. This sin, the Torah promises, will figure in every calamity that will befall Bnei Yisrael (see Shemot 32:34 and Rashi, Yirmiyah 2:22). Apparently, the difficulties surrounding the Chanuka story are no exceptions, as the reference to the horn of the bull hints. Note that the greatest sin between man and G-d (chet ha'egel) has its roots in the greatest betrayal of man by man (the sale of Yosef). The navi Amos (in the haftara of Vayeishev) referred to the sale of the righteous as a slave as the prototype of the sins of a socially corrupt society. These ideas should be on the minds of the leaders, both political and religious, of our present-day society. ******************************************************************************************************************* P'ninat Mishpat- Chanuka and Choshen Mishpat Where in mishnayot can we find discussion of the laws of Chanuka? The gemara deals with it in the 2nd perek of Shabbat, but that is the gemara, not the mishna. Are there any mishnayot anywhere? Actually, there is one, in Bava Kamma (62b) of all places, dealing with the laws of damages. The mishna states that if one puts a flame outside his store and a man leads his loaded animal down the street and his load catches on fire, the storeowner is liable to pay for damages. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the fire was caused by Chanuka lights, then he would be exempt from paying. The gemara explains that the exemption stems from the fact that the potentially dangerous situation he set up, which at the end did cause damage, was done as part of a mitzva, thus alleviating him of financial liability. This is a rule that exists in other places as well, exempting one from payment when causing damage while running to honor the Shabbat as it enters (ibid. 32a). Perhaps there is another lesson here, which we should keep very well in mind. The fact that damages stemming from reasonably done mitzva activities carry a monetary exemption is not meant to signal that one should not worry about such consequences. The contrary is true. We have a rule that "shluchei mitzva einan nizokin- emissaries to do mitzvot are not damaged due to these activities" (Pesachim 8a). One might think then that one could ignore risks while being involved in performing mitzvot. This is partially true and partially not so. The gemara (ibid.) points out that where damage is common, the rule does not apply. By discussing damages stemming from Chanuka lights in such a prominent way, Chazal may be teaching us, in a secondary message, that these little flames are very capable of causing damage. While the threat of damage does not deter us from doing the mitzva under normal circumstances, we should realize that we must be careful not to cause damage to ourselves or our neighbors. Exemption from payment does not imply exemption from moral obligation. And where we have no way to fulfill the mitzva without putting someone in danger of serious injury, we are to refrain from doing the mitzva. We wish you all a meaningful and safe Chanuka! ************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Choice of Am Yisrael for EretzYisrael (from Harabbanut V'hamedinah, pp. 292-296)- part II ]We saw last time that the Torah started with the story of creation to show that Hashem, who created the world, has the right to decide to whom to give his most coveted land, Eretz Yisrael. We continued to explain that the Torah continues with the story of our forefathers to show why Hashem chose their offspring to receive the Land. The main attribute that Avraham displayed, which made him worthy, was that of hakarat hatov, recognizing and responding to the good bestowed upon him, something that was lacking in Adam, forefather of mankind, in general.[ Chazal tell us that Hashem offered the Torah to all of the world's nations, but they refused it (Avoda Zara 2b). At the End of Days the nations will approach Hashem with the following, logical complaint. Even Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah only after having Har Sinai held over their heads. Under those circumstances, the nations of the world would also have likely accepted it (ibid.). The answer to this question is included in the lessons of the stories of Sefer Bereishit. It is true that Bnei Yisrael needed some coercing to accept the Torah, but through the spiritual legacy they received from their forefathers, they were prepared to turn the Torah into a part of their being. They were capable of taking the Divine element of man and having it rule over the earthly, physical sideof man. That is why they were given Eretz Yisrael, a land where the ideal life of creating a state dedicated to a Torah way of life can be implemented in all facets of life. Toward the end of the Torah (Devarim 26), Bnei Yisrael were given the mitzva of bikurim (first fruit), in whose merit they were allowed to enter the land. What is the message of that mitzva? The bringing of the fruit is accompanied by a declaration, which Chazal sum up with the words, "I declare that I am not a kafuy tova (a denier of the good I receive)" (Sifrei, ad loc.). In other words, our ability to recognize the good, inculcated into the national persona by Avraham, is that which merits us the Land. It was Avraham, thus, who succeeded in turning Hashem from the "G-d of the Heavens" to the "G-d of the Land." The Torah charges us to "remember the days of old" and "contemplate the years of generation after generation" (Devarim 32:7). We must look at our own times within the perspective of Chazal's lessons. In our generation, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the ill effects of the original snake have taken hold of us. It appears that we too have become guilty of ignoring the good that Hashem has bestowed upon us during the period of the formation of our independent state in our homeland. It is difficult to understand the attitude of many of us who are faithful to the concept of Divine Providence in the personal realm, all the more so on the national level. How can a believing Jew fail to see the miraculous nature of our return to Eretz Yisrael, with the agreement of the nations of the world? We must remember that we were trapped in the grasp of a cruel, punishing exile for close to 2,000 years and were prevented by Divine oath from rebelling against the nations of the world. Those very nations got up and decided to grant us independence in our land, a decision that is now irreversible. Why do we not awake to the opportunity Hashem mercifully presented us with? The doors to Eretz Yisrael are open, and the Torah provides us with both a personal and a national mitzva to settle the land and strengthen our hold on it. Should our brethren abroad not take the opportunity to separate themselves from the exile and take the challenge to help build the state in such a way that it will run based on the Torah and halacha? ******************************************************************************************************************* Ask the Rabbi Question: My wife and I will be spending part of Chanuka in a guesthouse as part of a group. The group will be the only ones on the premises. Part of my family will be at home. Do I light Chanuka candles where I am and, if so, where? Answer: The gemara (Shabbat 23a) says that a guest is obligated to light Chanuka candles at his host's home but that it is sufficient to give money for some of the oil that is used to be included in their lighting. (Some say that more oil must be added in order for the contribution to be significant (Mishna Berura 677:3)). The gemara adds that Rav Zeira, who used to pay toward the oil, stopped doing so once he got married (but was sometimes away from home by himself), because his wife would light for him in his home (the understanding of most poskim). Thus, it would seem that as long as there are bar/bat mitzva age children at home lighting, you are exempt from lighting outside the home. The only provision one should immediately add is that the Taz (677:1) assumes that a wife is automatically assumed to light with her husband in mind, while others in the household should have their parent(s) in mind specifically. However, there are additional factors that complicate matters, and these factors are different for Ashkenazim and Sephardim. The Maharil, one of the pillars of Ashkenazic p'sak and, especially, minhag, says that nowadays a person who is staying at inns of different sorts should light his own candles. This is because two things have changed. One is that the place of lighting with the related pirsumei nisa (publicizing of the miracle) has been moved indoors. Secondly, now we customarily have all the members of a household light. Therefore, if one of the guests does not light, others may think that he has chosen not to take part in the mitzva and may not realize that he has a household where they are lighting for him. The Terumat Hadeshen (101) anyway rules that since there is a concept of mehadrin (adding on more Chanuka lighting than is necessary), a guest who is interested in lighting despite being exempt by his family can do so with a beracha. We also prefer a person to light his own candle rather than add on to the host's oil (Mishna Berura ibid.: 3). This is especially pertinent in a case like yours where you are part of a group where everybody is a guest of a commercial institution. This is different than joining an existing household, which more naturally absorbs others (see Chovat Hadar, Chanuka 2:9). As far as where to light, the Rama says that the place where people eat is the proper place to light. One could argue whether it is preferable to also light in or outside one's room [beyond our scope], but given that most guesthouses are understandably reluctant to have unnecessary fire hazards, the lighting in the joint dining hall should suffice. For Sephardim, there are two major differences. Firstly, the Shulchan Aruch (see Beit Yosef, 677) does not accept the Terumat Hadeshen's permission to make a beracha when he is able to be exempt by his household. Secondly, the Shulchan Aruch says that where the guests have separate sleeping quarters with a separate entrance than that of the ba'al habayit, they should light there, as otherwise it might be suspected that the occupier of the dwelling is not lighting. It is unclear whether that situation requires lighting with or without a beracha (when there is a lighting in their own home) and the Kaf Hachayim (667:9) suggests hearing the beracha from someone who is obligated. Where there is a problem getting permission to light in the room, it may be reasonable for Sephardim to light without their own beracha in the joint dining area and try to ensure that someone lights in front of the building or wing they sleep, having them in mind. Another direction of leniency is that in a campus that is occupied by one group whose members light uniformly, the issue of suspecting one another is weaker than usual. 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