Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Yitro 18 Shevat 5775 (7 February 2015)

AS SHABBAT APPROACHES A Question for Yeshayahu - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem This week's Haftarah includes one of the most difficult verses in all of the books of the prophets: "In the year King Uziyahu died, I saw G-d sitting on an exalted and lofty throne and the hems of His cloak filled the Sanctuary" [Yeshayahu 6:1]. How can anybody talk about "seeing" G-d, even if we assume that this is an allegory? Even in an allegory there are internal rules that establish limits on what can be said. As is explicitly written, "No man can see Me and live" [Shemot 33:20]. The sages teach us that Menasheh, King of Yehuda, turned to Yeshayahu and asked him to clarify his words. "He said to him: Your master Moshe said, 'No man can see Me and live,' how can you say, 'I saw G-d sitting on an exalted and lofty throne'?" [Yevamot 49b]. Yeshayahu did not want to answer Menasheh because he was asking in order to get the best of the prophet and not in order to really understand. But what would Yeshayahu answer us if we asked this question? There are of course philosophical approaches that provide answers, such as differentiating between various levels of revelation, or between different names of G-d (aleph-daled-nun-yud in Yeshayahu's prophecy, yud-heh-vav-heh in the command to Moshe), between looking at the "front" or the "back" of G-d, and so on. But such topics were not usually raised during the times of the prophets. Perhaps we can say that since the prophecy of Yeshayahu is based on his experience there is no need to explain it in abstract terms. If we were able to ask what he meant by his statement that he saw G-d – did he mean the essence or external elements, speech or a physical phenomenon, was he referring to a new category of consciousness – he would probably have answered simply, "I saw G-d." He would not have felt any need to explain how this does not contradict the command not to engage in anthropomorphism of G-d. Based on this approach, we can possibly explain why in his book on the Kuzari Rabbi Yehuda Halevy divided the discussion of the titles of G-d into two essays – the second and the fourth chapters. In the second chapter, the discussion of names is entirely philosophical and is related to the era after the end of prophecy, when there is no longer any revelation of the Shechina, and the intellect is the only way to understand the written word. The intellect only recognizes negative names which completely contradict anthropomorphism. But in the fourth chapter the discussion involves the language of the prophets, who had the merit of experiencing a direct revelation by G-d, which has a positive connotation, and they

encountered the names of G-d that are related to yud-heh-vav-heh. The differences between the two eras are what prevent modern man from understanding the internal world of the prophets. In spite of our great mental distance from a true understanding of the essence of what he said, Yeshayahu has left us with an important message: The very same G-d, who is totally separated from all the creatures, about whom the angels declare "Holy, Holy, Holy..." meaning that He is far away from us, without any defined goal (as noted by Rabbi Yehuda Halevy, that Yeshayahu heard the word "Holy" without any stated purpose), is the One who "fills the entire world with His glory." He faces mankind, which was never abandoned by G-d, and He supervises every move of mankind and answers his prayers. Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center, Jerusalem POINT OF VIEW A Protective Kippa for the Police - by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute "Appoint judges ("shoftim") and officials ("shotrim") at all your gates" [Devarim 16:18]. "'Officials' – They force the nation to perform the mitzvot, by striking them and binding them with rods and with straps." [Rashi]. The Police – a Force of Authority Recently we have been overwhelmed by a number of affairs which involve moral and criminal failures of senior officers in the Israel Police. This involves charges of bribery (in the case of Rabbi Pinto) and sexual impropriety, between officers with command authority and female staff who are under their control. The "cat" which is charged with guarding the "cream" of law and morality does not keep its hand away from the plate. (See the source of this phrase, "The lazy one puts his hand into the plate, he will be too weary to put it back into his mouth" [Mishlei 26:15]. One who is lazy will not bother to put something into his mouth which he has already hidden in his hand, taking it straight from the plate.) The "landowner" allows himself to act in the very way that he punishes when he encounters it in others. We wrote "landowner" in quotes, using the Hebrew word "paritz," and indeed the popular and childish image of the police is that of a frightening and authoritative force.

2

Children are raised by threatening mothers, who say, "If you don't eat your banana, a policeman will come to get you... If you don't stop yelling on the street, we will call the police." These are just some of the examples of silly statements. This approach to the police stems from the existential need for a supreme authority, as our sages taught us: "If not for the fear of government authority, every person would swallow up his colleague alive" [Avot 3:2]. Thus, authority is an expression of the requirement that "you must fear it" [Sanhedrin 19b]. In folk language this is indeed the paritz, the Gentile landowner, who stands above the law. This image is also implied by the quote at the beginning of this article about the task of the officials to force the people to act by using a rod and a strap. The police as a superior authority can also be seen in the framework of halacha with respect to the laws of installing an "eiruv" around a settled area (to allow carrying on Shabbat). An eiruv can only be set up if the entire area is bought in a formal act of purchase from the "minister of the city" who has some ownership of the area to be enclosed by the eiruv. In Europe the area was purchased from the paritz, and modern halachic experts in Israel and abroad have replaced this functionary by the local police chief. His privilege of entering every place within the area for searches and to make arrests gives him the halachic status of the "minister of the city." (See: Noda B'Yehuda Tanyana Orach Chaim 32; Maharsham volume 5, 33; Chelkat Yaacov Orach Chaim 131; among many others). This classic image of power has evidently not gone unnoticed by some of the police and officers themselves. It seems that some of them have even taken on "the paritz-like ministerial power," and that the higher one is in rank, the greater is the feeling of being a master. A person must have a large measure of humility and a noble disposition in order to avoid such a feeling of power, and this puts us into a bind. People who are humble and modest will probably be rejected outright for serving in the police because of "mental unsuitability." In spite of the above, I am convinced that many members of the police force in Israel have not fallen into this trap. Authority and Permissiveness – An Explosive Mix When you mix authority with permissiveness and hedonism you get the results that we see in the recent scandals. The authority of a boss is very tempting as a way of exploiting sexual relationships in any situation where there is a chain of command. This would include the army, hospitals, and in general employers who have the power to make decisions without any substantial control over them. However, it seems that in the police force the potential for exploitation is especially great. Add to all of this the fact that the "work area" is full of criminals, drug dealers, rapists, organized crime bosses, and speculators. As Rashi writes, "How can a son avoid sinning if he is stationed at the entrance to a brothel?" [Shemot 32:31]. It has been reported that in the IDF this phenomenon has greatly decreased as a result of extensive work that has been

undertaken in this realm. Severe standards have been implemented (including against people who are aware of what is happening but do not report it), significant punishment has been put in place, female officers who are readily available have been appointed, and charges are investigated very quickly. The Israel Police force should immediately copy these procedures and implement them publicly and in a forceful way. The First Religious Police General! In the journals and the literature of early Zionism and settlement in Eretz Yisrael, there was a prominent vision of "the first Jewish policeman" as a desirable character representing normalization of authority. The "police of Bnei Yisrael" in the days before the State of Israel was established came before the "Israeli defense force," just as they preceded the Exodus from Egypt (Shemot 5:14; 5:15; 5:19). To this day many tourists are duly impressed to meet a "Jewish policeman," while in their own lands the police often represents a violent force which oppresses the population. And here we come to one of the main points of this article. I call out to my friends and colleagues, those who wear a knitted kippa and who are looking for a challenge for religious Zionism: Fill the ranks of the police force! I fully believe that if such people will increase in the higher ranks of the force, "affairs" of the type we have been discussing will dramatically decrease in number. I know that it is not politically correct for us to pat ourselves on our backs and declare, "We can solve the problem!" But I still can't wait to see the first religious general in the ranks of the police. This is the place to take note of and show our appreciation for the work of Rabbi Rami Berachyahu, the Rabbi of Talmon, who established a police prep school, "Maaminim Bamishtara" (Faithful in the Police). I have had an opportunity of closely viewing the fruits of this institution. This prep school trains police officers from among graduates of Hesder Yeshivot and army prep schools, and it sees as its mission to send religious people into the ranks of the police. THE LIGHT STARTS IN THE EAST Objecting to "Pilpul" – by Chezi Cohen, Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa and Midreshet Ein Hanatziv The wise men of the east rejected the concept of "pilpul" – analytical hair-splitting as a method of Torah study. This technique became widespread in the era of the Tosafot and took root mainly among the scholars of Ashkenaz, even though some of the rabbis were opposed to it (for example, the Marahal and the Maharshal). The technique is based on the assumption that all the sources of Judaism are based on a single unified foundation, and that therefore no two texts can ever contradict each other, even if they were written in different places and at different times. Thus, if a discrepancy is found, it is necessary to define a "chiluk" – to differentiate between the

3

two sources, in a way that often has no direct basis in the texts themselves. The technique is based on complex theoretical reasoning which provides great intellectual pleasure. As opposed to this, in the lands of the east (except for Tunis, which will be treated in a separate article), from as early as the days of the Geonim and the Rambam, there was a strong opposition to this method of study. It was replaced by a method of "assukei shemaita aliba d'hilchata" – studying with the goal of uncovering the halachic significance of the original sources. It was understood that it was necessary to decide which of the arguments presented is correct. As is well known, the technique of pilpul gained great strength in Lita and it has completely taken over the Ashkenazi Yeshivot in our land. In recent generations, as the Jews gathered in the land from all over the world and as modernization took place, the wise men of the east encountered the Ashkenazi method of study and expressed their opposition to this technique. They saw pilpul as vain study which draws the student away from the truth of Torah. As far as they are concerned, the Torah is intimately linked to life and is not a sophisticated intellectual pursuit at all. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was used to saying, "Pilpul is bilbul (confusion)." Even sharper words were expressed by Rabbi Shewika, a prominent Egyptian rabbi in the beginning of the twentieth century. He wrote the following to his nephew: * * * * * * However, I am not happy about what you wrote to me that you are engaged in pilpul. Take my advice, and let G-d be with you, don't be enticed to start with ... those who are involved in pilpul and hadran, to build up a thesis and destroy, only to build it up again and destroy, without any useful purpose. I feel that this is very close to being a waste of time and a neglect of the study of Torah. * * * * * * Rabbi Shewika saw the study of pilpul as a waste of the time that should have been spent learning Torah! It moves the student away from the intention of the Torah – to have a direct practical influence on the lives of the individuals and the community as a whole. * * * * * * Once, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi (Rishon Letzion) Yaacov Meir went into Yeshivat Tiferet Yerushalayim, and he saw the married scholar Meir Chai Uziel with a book of pilpul from the Talmud in front of him. Rabbi Uziel was so engrossed in understanding the pilpul that he did not notice that the Rishon Letzion had arrived. Rabbi Meir went to him and saw the book in front of him, and he smiled and said, "Go away from the sharp approach and the pilpul, and move on to straight and logical insights. I wish for you to have the clear vision to descend into the depths and the truths of the brilliant words of our wise men." Rabbi Uziel, who later became the Rishon Letzion,

declared that the words of Rabbi Meir had a profound effect on him, and because of them he changed his approach to learning. * * * * * * This story involves Rabbi Uziel when he was starting out on his career. He studied in Yeshivat Tiferet Yisrael, the most prominent Sephardi yeshiva before the First World War, where many rabbis who became Rishon Letzion studied. Rabbi Yaacov Meir supported the yeshiva, and he unsuccessfully tried to rebuild it after the end of the First World War. In the story, Rabbi Uziel sat in the middle of the highest yeshiva for Sephardim, but his heart was busy in the pursuit of the pilpul that was common among the wise men of Ashkenaz. The encounter with Rabbi Meir brought him back to the classic mode of Sephardic studies. Rabbi Meir directs his disciple to the style of study which requires straightforward logic and not convoluted thinking. For him, the desire to achieve the truth of Torah does not go through the techniques of pilpul. Rabbi Meir differentiates between "chidud" – a sharp approach – and "chida" – a riddle – that is, an unclarified text which can only be explained using straightforward logic. This story illustrates the complex and unique position occupied by Rabbi Uziel. He is Sephardi, but his heart draws him towards the Ashkenazi style of learning. He is the son of Rabbi Yosef Rafael Uziel, the head of the rabbinical court of the Jerusalem Sephardi community. He was under the influence of the Rishon Letzion, Rabbi Elyashar, and as an adult he worked with the later Rishnon Letzion, Rabbi Yaacov Meir. With all of this, he was still influenced by the Ashkenazi world in his manner of thinking, and especially by Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook. He even wanted to accept various Ashkenazi customs (such as ritual slaughtering and Yibbum) in an effort to achieve a unified approach. But in our story his Sephardi identity is settled once and for all. His method of study from then on will follow "the path of halacha," but the striving of his soul has not disappeared, and all his life he tried to combine between the east and the west using the tools of halacha. e-mail: hhcohen4@gmail.com (I will be happy to hear any stories you have about the wise men of the east.) A FAMILY NAMED "YISRAELI" It's not Good Enough for Me - by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen, Director of the Or Etzion Institute – Publishing Torah Books of Quality Naama's Story Lately everything has been so upsetting! Yesterday I took a beautiful piece of artwork to school. I worked on it for a long time, spending many hours. The picture was perfect, and so were the decorations around it. But just when I left the house it started to rain. I protected the picture by putting it under my coat but that didn't help much,

4

and it got quite wet. And I had put so much effort into making it! Then, later that day, the teacher gave us the date for our annual field trip. Everybody was very excited - all except me, that is. Right away, I saw that on that very day my cousin Tehilla was getting married. What would I do? Would I miss the outing or the wedding? I would be upset no matter what I did! That day in our literature class we studied a parable from Krylov's Fables. Here it is. * * * * * * The hero of our story was a frog who was born in a swamp. It lived with all its many friends, croaking happily, wading in the water, and eating bugs. One day it decided that the life in the swamp was disappointing, and it decided to look for a new location. The little frog left the swamp and started to hop around the area. After a short trip it found a small hole full of water, where it rested for a few days. Then it continued on its way. Where was it going? The frog didn't know, but it decided to look for its fortune someplace else. The frog continued on its path, and a mountain rose up in the way. But the frog did not hesitate and started to climb. And in the end it found what it was looking for. There was an interesting puddle near the bottom of the mountain. Here was a place where the frog could live undisturbed. The puddle had ample water. "I have found me a new home!" the frog gleefully said to itself. Everything was fine as long as the rains continued and the area was still wet. But then winter ended, and even spring had come and gone. Summer ruled the skies, and the puddle dried up. The frog felt that it was getting weaker day by day, and with great difficulty it managed to suck some water out of some leaves. But its skin was completely dry (the skin of the frogs must be damp all the time), and the frog was even afraid that it might die. And now it fondly remembered its faraway home in the swamps. In the swamp, there was water all year round. But here everything was so different. Every day the frog would look up to the heavens in the hope of seeing rain clouds approaching. And then a scorpion happened to pass by and laughed at the frog. "Fool," it said. "What are you looking for? Don't you know that there is no rain in this season? Here rain falls only in the winter!" The frog did not understand, and it asked a question: "But the valley where I used to live was wet all year round! There was always rain falling, and the rivers would also fill up with water. Why is it any different here?"

The scorpion explained, "This is a mountain. It is high up, and water flows to a low place. We only get a small amount of water when rain falls, but even this mostly flows down to the valley." By then, the frog was quite desperate, but it still didn't lose hope. It knew that there was somebody who could help. The frog turned towards heaven and began to pray: "Please, the good G-d in heaven, listen to your servant's prayers. Please, G-d, let the rain fall, let the rivers swell, until the valley is filled with water, which will increase so much that it will rise up to this level." This prayer went unanswered, so the frog continued. "Please, G-d of mercy: You take care of every living creature. Why can't you take care of my need, a poor mountain frog? Is it so hard for you to fill up the valley with enough water that some will even reach me?" The frog fell to the ground without any remaining strength. It screamed, "There is no mercy in heaven!" And then, suddenly, a voice was heard from heaven. "Frog, you are indeed unfortunate. But perhaps instead of filling the entire world with water, so that all the human beings and the animals in the valley will suffer greatly, perhaps instead of all that you should trouble yourself to go down to the swamp in the valley?" * * * * * * "And what about us?" our teacher asked us. "How often do we want everything to be organized just way we need, without take anybody else's needs into account?" My teacher was asking this question to the whole class, but I felt that she was talking directly to me. I understood that the desires for the rain to stop and for the outing not to take place were not real. I put my head down in my lap and I realized – even if not everything happens in a way that is most convenient for me, I will always be able to manage... RESPONSA FOR OUR TIMES A Herbarium during Shemitta - by Rabbi Re'eim Hacohen, Rosh Yeshiva and Chief Rabbi, Otniel Question: How should wild herbs be treated during the Shemitta year? The Prohibition of Removing Weeds First of all, we must clarify what prohibition is involved in weeding our unwanted plants during Shemitta. A discussion appears in Moed Katan (2b) about removing weeds during Shabbat, specifically which major type of labor the sinner should be warned about. According to Rabba, this goes under the category of plowing, since one who uproots weeds together with their roots is at the same time aerating the earth and

5

improving it for later planting. However, Rav Yosef feels that the prohibition is planting, since as a result of weeding the other plants grow in a better way (which is in fact the main purpose for doing the weeding in the first place). In halachic terms, the Rambam rules about weeding according to the opinion of Rabba, that the prohibition is plowing (Hilchot Shabbat 8:1), and Or Zarua rules according to Rav Yosef (Hilchot Shabbat 54). The Talmud continues in Moed Katan by asking on both opinions, that of Rabba and that of Rav Yosef, from the law in the Mishna, which permits watering irrigated land on Chol Hamoed and during Shemitta – How can watering be permitted if it helps the land and the plants growing on it? The answer given is that as opposed to the laws of Shabbat, where all of the derivative labors are forbidden just like the thirty-nine major categories of labor, in Shemitta the only prohibited labor is what is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. These are four specific labors: Planting, reaping (which are major prohibitions), pruning, and harvesting grapes (which are prohibited as secondary violations). No other derived prohibitions exist in Torah law, and therefore watering a field is permitted during Shemitta. However, the Talmud finds this difficult to accept, based on a Baraita which derives from verses in the Torah that other types of labor are also forbidden – weeding, raking, mowing, fertilizing, and more. The Talmud replies that all the types of labor in this Baraita are only prohibited by a rabbinical decree (and that the proofs brought from verses are merely a hint of the matter but not Torah law). That is, according to the conclusion of the Talmud the prohibition of weeding is a rabbinical decree and not Torah law. Raking the Ground in order to Keep the Tree Alive The Baraita quoted above continues with a discussion of the labors which are permitted during Shemitta: "We might think that one should not rake the ground under the olive trees and not rake under the grapevines... it is written, 'do not plant your field' [Vayikra 25:4]. Planting was already included, why was it explicitly mentioned again? It was repeated to teach you: Just as planting refers specifically only to fields and vineyards, so all the prohibited labor is what happens in the field and the vineyard." Thus, we see that we are allowed to rake the ground under olive trees and grapevines. In my humble opinion, the explanation is clearly given in this passage – that the prohibition applies only to a field but not to the ground under trees, since we are permitted to perform actions to keep them alive after Shemitta. However, the Talmud then finds a contradiction between the law of raking the ground quoted above and a Midrash on the book of Shemot:

"Is raking the ground really allowed on Shemitta? After all, it is written, 'and on Shevi'it you shall let it rest and abandon it' [Shemot 23:11]. And we have been taught, 'let it rest' – from raking – and 'abandon it' – from removing the stones. Rabbi Ukvah Bar Chama replies to this, 'There are two types of raking. One is to improve the health of the tree and the other is to close the cracks in the ground. To improve the health of the trees is forbidden, to seal the cracks is allowed." According to the printed version of Rashi, improving the health of the tree is prohibited because the main reason to do this is for financial gain, while sealing the cracks is allowed because this is needed to keep the trees alive. However, in a manuscript Rashi explains that the permission given for closing the cracks is because this is not considered labor, and that the rule is not related to extra profits. In any case, it is clear from the Talmud's conclusion that raking the ground is permitted only in order to "keep the tree alive," which contradicts the simple reading of the Baraita quoted above. Weeding for Maintenance of the Tree In view of the above discussion, we can conclude that weeding which is prohibited by a rabbinical decree (as a secondary prohibition stemming from the labor of plowing), can be compared to the law of raking the ground under the tree. And this is only forbidden when its purpose is "to improve the health of the tree." The Ritva asks why we are allowed to water the fields on Shemitta while weeding is forbidden by rabbinical decree, and he writes that "there are those who reply" that a field that receives its water from irrigation can be watered in order to avoid a great loss. But the Ritva himself disagrees with this, and he feels that any labor which entails a large effort is prohibited on Shemitta, and that irrigation is a large effort. However, the Rambam does not agree with this, and he feels that there is no law of "a large effort" on Shemitta. Therefore the Chazon Ish (21:17) accepts the reasoning of "those who reply" and allows raking the ground in order to prevent a large loss. Rav Kook also accepts this ruling with respect to plowing in order to keep the trees healthy: "With respect to plowing during Shemitta in a case when it is clear that without the plowing the tree will be irreversibly lost – it appears that according to the Rambam this is permitted, since he wrote that the reason for permitting secondary labor is that if this labor is not performed the land will become salty and all the trees will die. The same is true for plowing..." [Kuntress Acharon 12]. This is certainly true for weeding, which merely a secondary offshoot of plowing. Note, however, that this entire discussion is relevant for one who weeds out the weeds with their roots. But mowing or spraying insecticides is not included in the

6

definition of weeding, and this is permitted a priori. In addition, there is no prohibition of uprooting plants that are growing in land which is not fit to be used for growing. Summary (1) Uprooting plants from ground which is not suitable for growing is not related to the prohibitions of plowing or planting on Shemitta and it is permitted a priori. Therefore on gravel or on beaten paths there is no problem in uprooting weeds. (2) Mowing grass without removing the roots or spraying is permitted a priori in any case. (3) Weeding, including uprooting, in a case of a substantial loss is allowed according to both the Chazon Ish and Rav Kook. e-mail: raananmoshe1@gmail.com THE TABLE OF THE KINGS Jerusalem, an International City - by Bar-on Dasberg In each article in this series we deal with some aspect of a single chapter of the book of Melachim. (Melachim I 8) King Shlomo thought of a new idea in Judaism – Jerusalem would become a world center for religion. "And also the Gentile... if he comes to pray at this House, You will listen... In order that all of the nations of the earth will know Your name." [Melachim I 8:41-43]. This is a very positive idea, and it corresponds to the prophetic vision of the end of days: "And many nations will come and they will say, 'Let us rise up to the Mountain of G-d' [Yeshayahu 2:3; Micha 4:2]. However, this idea is also very dangerous. Later on, Shlomo's great sin is described: "Then Shlomo built an altar for Chemosh, the abomination of Moav, on the mountain facing Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Amon" [Melachim I 11:7]. It is reasonable to assume (and the commentators agree with this) that Shlomo himself did not worship idols but that he "merely" built altars for them. But we may still wonder how his wives were able to turn his heart so far away from the truth. As is common with the evil inclination, it may well be that Shlomo followed what seemed to him to be positive considerations. He wanted to draw all the other religions to the spiritual capitol of the world, to Jerusalem. However, this is the great error of his ways: Jerusalem is not a city for all the religions, rather it is a city for all the nations which come to experience the one and only true religion. RIDDLE OF THE WEEK by Yoav Shelosberg, Director of "Quiz and Experience"

Yitro The heads of X and 10X who are mentioned in the Torah portion with respect to leadership Are also mentioned in the Prophets by a King who was complaining about a revolt. The answers for last week: The riddle was: Numerically it is a Tzadik – one who is righteous. Add a "heh" and you get one who oppressed the Jews. The numerical value of "mann" – Hebrew for manna – is 90, the value of the letter "tzadik." Add the letter heh in front of the word, and you get Haman, the oppressor in Shushan. This weekly publication is distributed in Canada by MIZRACHI ORGANIZATION OF CANADA and by THE ZOMET INSTITUTE OF ALON SHVUT. It is an extract from SHABBAT B’SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin distributed in hundreds of synagogues in Israel and has been translated by Moshe Goldberg. If you are interested in sponsoring or advertising in an issue of Shabbat B’Shabbato contact the Mizrachi office in Toronto at 416-630-9266, mizrachi@rogers.com; or in Montreal 514-483-3660, mizrachimontreal@gmail.com.