b Parashat Shavua - sucot

  Main | Parashat Shavua French | Hebrew  
Dov Goldstein
Hitnachalut 11 Karnei Shomron
tel. 972-9-792 0838                     fax 972-9-792 0837
celphone: 972-52-424 305         tora@tora.co.il

logo 

Main >   Parashat Shavua
 Eretz_Hemdah




Hemdat Yamim Vayigash

Parshat Vayigash Hemdat Yamim The 4th volume of B'Mareh Habazak, Eretz Hemdah's responsa to Diaspora rabbis, has just been published. Copies are available at our office or can be sent by mail. Call our office for details. This edition of Hemdat Yamim isdedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. *************************************************************** The One for Us and Us for the One / Harav Moshe Ehrenreich Twice in our haftara, we read about the duality of the relationship between the Jewish nation and Hashem: "...I shall save them from their dwelling places where they sinned, and I shall purify them. They will be for Me a nation, and I will be for them a G-d" (Yechezkel 37:23). At the end of the haftara, the navi reiterates, saying: "And My dwelling shall be upon them and I shall be for them a G-d, and they shall be for Me a nation" (ibid. 27). In the first pasuk, the navi mentions Bnei Yisrael's status as Hashem's nation before Hashem's role as our G-d; in the latter pasuk, the order is switched. Why? Another noteworthy nuance is found at the end of the haftara. Pasuk 26 prophesies: "I shall put My sanctuary in their midst forever." Pasuk 27 tells: "My dwelling shall be upon them. The haftara ends off with: "And the nations shall know that I am Hashem, sanctifier of Yisrael, as My sanctuary shall be among them forever" (Pasuk 28). What is the difference between "a sanctuary (Mikdash) in their midst" and "a dwelling (Mishkan) upon them?" We can explain these nuances based on a crucial principle found in Rav Kook's famous letter regarding Shmitta (Letter 555). There are two fundamental elements which are jointly responsible for the holiness of the Jew and create his special connection to Hashem: 1. segulah (innate, special qualities) - the natural holiness in the soul of a Jew which he inherits from his fathers; 2. bechira (choice) - the holiness which is added to the Jew according to his performance of good deeds and study of Torah. Rav Kook stresses that the segulah element of holiness is inestimably greater than the additional holiness which emanates from the individual's life choices. The Maharal (Netzach Yisrael II) takes the thesis of the primacy of non-bechira qualities a step further. He says that even the segulah of our forefathers was based primarily on the fact that Hashem chose them and granted it to them, above and beyond their own significant acts of righteousness. Let us return to the haftara. During the earlier stages of redemption, when Hashem saves us and purifies us, we are still without a proper level of holy actions. The redemption is, thus, a function of our being the nation of Hashem, because He chose us as a precious jewel in His crown. This earlier pasuk, therefore, stresses the fact that we are Hashem's nation. Only in later stages, when our own actions elevate us, does it become revealed that part of our status as Hashem's nation stems from the fact that we have treated him as our G-d, which then shows in our deeds. Thus, the latter pasuk mentions first Hashem's being our G-d and continues with the result that we are His nation on a higher level. The internal segulah of Bnei Yisrael can be referred to as "the sanctuary in their midst" (thus, pasuk 26). The second stage is when Bnei Yisrael's visible actions (bechira) are clearly in the right direction. Then Hashem's dwelling is upon them, in such a way that it is visible from a distance. When one looks at us, they can then see godly activities (thus, pasuk 27). Finally, the navi concludes with a look at Bnei Yisrael when both elements of our sanctity are functioning properly. The nations of the world will recognize at that ideal time that the innate, internal quality of Bnei Yisrael, represented by the "sanctuary in their midst" is the primary unique and holy attribute of Hashem's nation (thus, pasuk 28). May we merit that our eternal, segulah qualities, which have already enabled us to see great achievements, be speedily joined by the right choices on our individual and collective parts and, together, bring about the full geulah. *************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) An Explanation of an Admission of Marriage (from Mishp'tei Shaul, siman 10) A woman admitted in beit din that after a civil marriage, an old Jew in Russia "made a chupah for us." The regional court in Haifa ruled that she required a get based on this admission (shavya a'nafsha chaticha d'issura). Later on, the said woman clarified that, although there had been some type of ceremony, the old Jew was not a rabbi, all he had done in the ceremony was to say some words, there weren't "kosher" witnesses, and no ring was given. Two of the dayanim rejected the woman's appeal of the decision, because the amatla (excuse or explanation of her admission) was not convincing [ed. note- the transcript of the testimony was shortened by necessity in our presentation] and, thus, the admission stands. Rav Yisraeli thought that the appeal should be sustained for the following reasons. An amatla in which one doesn't just explain why he made a false admission, but rather explains that the apparent admission was misunderstood and, in fact, was not an admission at all, is more readily accepted. The woman never actually said that there was kiddushin (the necessary first stage of the marriage process) but just that a chupah was done (see Pitchei Teshuva, EH 26:3 that even those who say that chupah can count as kiddushin admit that a canopy is not sufficient). Even if we understand that by chupah, she meant that there was a full Jewish wedding, she could still explain herself. The Maharival says that in a case that one didn't previously realize what is required halachically to make a marriage valid, she can explain herself and tell what specifically transpired. In that case, only an explanation of her words is needed, not an excuse for why she said what she said (see Choshen Mishpat 80). The Shut Harosh (quoted as halacha in Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 15:30) says that when a woman says she had kiddushin but didn't say that it was done in front of two witnesses, it is not considered an admission. Why doesn't the Rosh require an amatla? The context over there was that the supposed husband was dead (with the halachic issue being in regard to relatives through marriage whom she could not marry). Since she didn't expect any ramifications from her statement (she did not know that later on she would want to marry one of his relatives), she was not careful to mention that there weren't witnesses. So too, in the context of this woman's original reference to "chupah," it was clear that she wasn't aware that the details were important. Therefore, she does not require a special explanation why she didn't mention there were no witnesses. *************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: I know that when one makes a bracha on wine, it exempts one from making berachot on other drinks. Does this apply to grape juice as well? For example, if one makes kiddush over grape juice, does he have to make a "Shehakol" on soda that he subsequently drinks? Answer: The accepted practice is like the majority of poskim that grape juice is treated like wine regarding all halachot (including, as you assume, regarding kiddush). This ruling applies to exempting other drinks from a bracha (both the brachot before and after those drinks). However, one must realize that this is not a yes or no answer. First of all, some wine and grape juice are diluted to the point that they lose the status of wine regarding kiddush and berachot, as well (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 204:5). Since it is difficult for the consumer to know when it is too diluted, it is proper for the hashgacha on the wine or grape juice to state that it is valid for kiddush and/or that its bracha is "Hagefen." (Some hashgachot add that it is valid even for Sephardim, who are somewhat more strict on this issue). The second point is that one needs to drink a certain amount of wine to be exempted from other drinks. The Biur Halacha (on 174:2) rules that in order for other drinks to be overshadowed by the drinking of the wine, one must drink a minimum of a m'loh lugmav (roughly, a full cheek which looks like two full cheeks), which is approximately 2 fl. oz.). If, at kiddush, one person had the requisite amount and others just had a taste of wine, then it is highly questionable whether the others are exempt from making a bracha on the drink (ibid.). It is also important that either the drinks are present at the time of the original bracha or that the person had them in mind (ibid.). A guest at a kiddush normally has in mind to eat or drink from whatever the hosts/ organizers will bring out (V'zot Hab'racha, p. 99). If a case of doubt arises, it is best to make a "Shehakol" on a solid food before partaking of the soda, etc. and include future drinks in the bracha or to have someone who didn't drink wine make a "Shehakol" on his behalf (Biur Halacha, ibid.). ***************************************************** 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



web site created by Happy Web Design