Languages
Pages
Legal
K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D לעילוי נשמת הש"ץ שלמה בן אברהם משה ז"ל לעילוי נשמת חנה בת אלעזר ע"ה
For Questions on Divrei Torah or articles, to receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email [email protected]
PAR
AS
HA
מוצש’’קLONDON: 8:54 PM
הדלקת נרותLONDON: 7:42 PM שבת הגדול
TO SHAVE OR NOT TO SHAVERabbi Shlomo OdzeAssociate Rabbi, South Hampstead Synagogue
Now in Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Bet Shemesh, Borehamwood, Chile, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Hong Kong, Ilford, Johannesburg, Lakewood, Las Vegas, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Melbourne, Miami, New York, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, Radlett, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich
For any questions on Divrei Torah please
contact the Editor in Chief,
Rabbi Yonasan Roodyn
OnegShabbosNorth West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets
A Torah publication that enables local Rabbonim and Avreichim to share their insights and Divrei Torah on a variety of different levels, to provide something for everyone.
פרשת מצורע16th April 2016 ח’ ניסן תשע"ו
“And it shall be, on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair: [that of] his head, his beard” (Vayikra 14:9)
The Gemara in Yevamos 5a learns the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh – a positive mitzva pushes off a negative Mitzvah - from this posuk, hence the positive mitzva of a metzora shaving his beard overrides the negative mitzva of “nor shall they shave the edge of their beard” (Vayikra 21:5).
In light of this, the Rambam in his commentary of the mishna (Meseches Negaim) teaches an incredible chiddush. The Rambam asks why the process of purification of a metzora entailing letting free a live bird and shaving, does not apply today? Although we do not have korbanos today we do find that the inability to bring a korban does stop the process of setting one bird free and shaving.
The Rambam answers that since a metzora is only permitted to shave his beard because of aseh docheh lo saaseh he would not be able to do it today as he cannot bring a korban afterwards to atone (Vayikra 14:10). The process is therefore left incomplete and we only apply the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh to a positive mitzvah which can be completed fully.
According to the Rambam therefore, although bringing a korban is a separate mitzvah to shaving, and in the times of the beis hamikdash not being able to bring a korban would not stop a person shaving, nevertheless since the Korban is considered the completion of the shaving process therefore shaving on its own could not be done today as it would not override the Mitzva of not shaving the edge of the beard due to the mitzva being incomplete.
This raises the following question. With regards to tzitzis there is a machlokes (Menachos 37b) as to whether the four corners are considered one mitzva or each of the four are a mitzva in their own right. The difference would be regarding shaatnez in tzitzis, which are theoretically permitted. If all four are one mitzva, should you be missing strings on one corner your mitzva is incomplete and you would not be allowed to have shaatnez in the garment. If however, each corner is a separate mitzva then should you be missing strings on one corner you are still fulfilling the mitzva on the other corners and therefore you can wear the garment containing shaatnez, even if your mitzva of tzitzis is not complete.
This does not seem to fit in with the Rambam who opined that we only apply the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh to a positive mitzva which can be completed fully. In the case of tzitzis we see, at least according to one opinion, that we do apply the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh to a positive Mitzvah even if is NOT completed fully.
One answer to this is that the Rambam was referring to the bringing of korbanos today in which there is no possibility at all of bring them until Moshiach comes. In that case the Rambam holds that we only apply the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh to a positive mitzva which only can be completed fully right away, and he has no possibility of that at this stage. With regard to tzitzis however, the fact that they are incomplete is purely a temporary matter which can, and no doubt will be, repaired right away at the earliest opportunity. Therefore we would still apply the principle of aseh docheh lo saaseh and he would be allowed to wear this tzitzis of shaatnez in the meantime (according to the opinion that each corner is a separate mitzva).
May we be zoche to the coming of Moshiach when we will be able to once again bring korbonos.
This weeks Oneg Shabbos
Publication is sponsored
In loving memory of
Yisrael ben Gabriel Berdah
Sultana bat Chana Berdah
לע'נישראל בן גבריאל
ברדה ע''הסלטנה בת חנה
ברדה ע''ה
By Family Kuper
בס"ד
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E
1. What lies behind the name tzoraas?
NO FONE FURSDAY!Not touching your phone throughout Shacharis on Thursday mornings.Can you handheld that? 0800-613-HANDLE-IT?
לעלוי נשמת
יוסף בן יצחק ז“לTammam
ISKA – A QUISTCLOSE TRUST?Dayan Yehonoson Hoolnewly appointed to the Federation Beis Din
2
Generally, funds advanced as a loan become the property of the borrower. The borrower’s other creditors have equal rights to claim their debts from these funds as has the lender of these funds.
However, English law recognises a unique situation in which one who advances funds to a borrower has priority rights to these funds over other creditors. A Quistclose Trust is a mechanism by which a lender can lend money to a company or individual, with a stipulation that the funds be used for a specific purpose. This gives certain rights to the lender over the funds; in particular, if the borrower becomes insolvent before it has used the funds as instructed, then the lender has first claim on these funds, which are thus protected from being taken by the borrower’s other creditors.
In a landmark case, Barclays Bank Ltd. v Quistclose Investments Ltd (1970), the House of Lords considered a case in which Quistclose (Q), a finance company, had lent money to Rolls Razor Ltd (RR), a company that was teetering on the brink of insolvency, for the express purpose of paying a promised dividend to RR’s shareholders. The loan moneys were placed in a separate account at Barclays Bank. Soon after, RR did indeed become insolvent. Barclays Bank, which happened to be RR’s principle secured creditor, naturally assumed that its claim would take priority over Q’s unsecured loan, but Q claimed a proprietary right in the funds. The House of Lords decided in favour of Q, ruling that these funds were held in trust for Q and thus Q would have priority over other creditors in recovering them.
Although the ruling has been accepted as precedent, there is much debate amongst jurists and academics as to how to explain the mechanism of the
“Quistclose” trust in line with established legal trust concepts. Amongst the views put forward, some argue that the funds are considered to be held in a secondary trust which arises because the primary express trust was incapable of being carried out once the borrower became insolvent. In other words, the funds were in fact a loan, but once the condition for the loan cannot be fulfilled, they revert back to the ownership of the lender, and the borrower merely holds them on trust for the lender. Others explain that the beneficial interest remains in the lender throughout, with the borrower undertaking to apply it to the lender’s designated purpose, in accordance with a mandate that the lender can revoke if that purpose is frustrated. Put simply, in this view the funds never really leave the possession of the lender until the terms of the loan are carried out and the funds are put by the borrower to the use stipulated.
Halachic Precedent Lehavdil, in halachah there is precedent for a Quistclose-like situation. As
shall be seen, the concept of Iska includes a loan that can nonetheless only be used for a specific purpose, and there is an extensive discussion in the poskim as to whether the lender has priority to these funds over other creditors.
IskaIt is forbidden for a Jew to pay interest on a loan to another Jew, or to
receive interest on a loan from a Jew. In order to facilitate investment, the Gemora discusses the Iska arrangement, in which a financier gives over a sum of money to an entrepreneur for the purpose of investment. The financier
wants a share of the profits, but if the funds were given as a straightforward loan any payment beyond the repayment of the principal would be interest. The way around this was to declare the funds as being half a pikadon (bailment
– i.e. the funds still belong to the financier) and the other half being a milveh (loan). The entrepreneur/recipient must invest the funds in an appropriate investment project. Half of the profits would go to the financier, because half of the principle remained his, with the other half of the profits going to the recipient, as half the funds belonged to him, seeing as he had borrowed them. (The recipient received an additional payment for the service he provided in investing the financier’s half of the funds on his behalf, because otherwise this service itself would be considered an interest payment on the loan half.)
The Gemora makes clear though, that although half the funds are considered a loan, the recipient may not use these funds for whatever he wants (“to drink beer,” in the Gemora’s example). They must be applied for an investment together with the pikadon half. Splitting the funds into two would limit the investment opportunities, whereas the larger, combined capital will facilitate wider investment prospects, and thus the Gemora rules that the recipient must commit even the loan half to investment opportunities and not simply use it for his own private purposes.
This arrangement is referred to in the Gemora as “Iska.” (The common contemporary “Hetter Iska,” although originating in this concept, is actually quite different in practice, and works primarily via a different mechanism.)
Recovering an Iska from a deceased recipient What would happen if the borrower subsequently died, leaving no assets
other than these funds, or goods purchased with them by the borrower? Generally, when a man dies, debts that he owes can only be recovered from the deceased’s real property. If he left behind only metaltelin (chattels – i.e. movable items) the creditors have no recourse to claim from the estate. (This was the Halachah in the times of the Gemora. Later, in the times of the Geonim, it was instituted that creditors could claim from a deceased’s metaltelin as well, and that remains the Halachah today.) So if the recipient had received funds under an Iska arrangement, and then died, one would expect that half of the funds (or half of any goods purchased by the borrower with these funds) would be returned to the financier, as they were not in fact a loan at all but remained the property of the lender. The other half of the funds, though (or half of anything purchased with them) was in fact a loan, and thus belongs to the recipient, although he owes a debt of the value of this half of the funds to the financier. As such, one would expect that the financier would have no recourse to recover this debt if the deceased left behind no real estate. This is indeed the opinion of R’ Idi bar Ovin in the Gemora (Bava Metzia, 104b).
Rava, though, disagrees. He states that Chazal deliberately called these funds an Iska (business), rather than a loan arrangement, in order to emphasise that even the loan half is no ordinary loan, and the financier can in fact recover this half of the funds too if the recipient dies, even if he leaves behind no real property. The Halachah follows Rava’s opinion.1
What is the reasoning behind Rava’s ruling? Rashi explains that although a lender cannot usually recover his loan from a deceased’s metaltelin, the reason for this is because in the first place at the time of the loan he did not place his reliance on recovery from the borrower’s metaltelin, because they can easily be disposed of. They therefore do not become liened to the loan for collection after the borrower dies. (Real property, that cannot be disposed of, is in fact liened to the debt, because the lender actually does rely on this property for repayment.) In the case of the Iska though, even the
1 Shulchan Aruch, Y.D., 177:31
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E
2. What lies behind the name metzora?
07860 017 641SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A SHAILA? ASK THE federation
T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D B Y T H E F E D E R A T I O N
07860 017 641SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A SHAILA? ASK THE federation
Sunday 17th April 2016
from 3-6pm
Beis Hamedrash Nishmas Yisroel (in Rear Carpark) 4 Brent Green London NW4
ON SITE SUPERVISION ON BEHALF OF THE
FEDERATION BEIS DIN BY RABBI Y FRICKERS שליט”א
Please ensure all items for kashering are clean and have not have been
used for 24 hours. Though maximum care will be taken, the Federation takes
no responsibility for any damage to property or persons.
A COMMUNITY SERVICE OF THE FEDERATION
בס”ד
For more information email [email protected] or telephone 020 8202 2263If you have any questions regarding Hagolas Keilim please send a message to ShailaText 07860 017 641
PRE-PESACHHagolas Keilim
FED
ERA
TIO
N
T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D B Y T H E F E D E R A T I O N
loan half cannot be disposed of at will, because the funds were given with the stipulation that they be used for investment together with the other half of the funds that still belong to the lender. So even the loan half was implicitly given for a specific purpose only, and as such these funds cannot be disposed of at will, and thus in this case the lender does in fact assume that he will be able to recover his loan from them or from investments purchased with these funds. Uniquely in this situation, then, the lender can recover even the loan half of the Iska from the deceased’s estate (even in the absence of real estate).
The Rif, however, has a different approach to Rava’s ruling. He writes that the lender can recover even the loan half from the deceased’s estate “because it is his; the borrower only received it in order to invest and now that he has died it returns to the owner.”
This is a clear divergence from Rashi’s view. Whereas as Rashi sees the loan half as being a genuine loan, albeit with the unique characteristic that it can be recovered even from the borrower’s estate, the Rif seems to hold that even the loan half of the Iska has never fully left the financier’s possession entirely, and although the recipient can keep any profits that this half generates as if it were a loan to him, it is not in fact a fully-fledged loan at all.
Does the financier of an Iska have priority over other creditors in the Iska funds?
In the light of the above, let us consider what would happen if the recipient did not in fact die, but rather became insolvent. If the funds of the Iska were as yet unspent when the borrower became insolvent, the pikadon half certainly belongs to the financier, who will have priority over it above the borrower’s other creditors, as this half belonged all along to the financier. The same would apply to half of any goods that were purchased as an investment by the recipient with these funds. What about the other half of the funds, though? As they have the status of a milveh - loan, at first glance it would appear that the financier would have no priority over other creditors in this half of the funds, and presumably that would indeed be the case in Rashi’s view.
According to the Rif, however, even the loan half of the Iska, although referred to as a loan with respect to the borrower taking liability for loss and conversely taking any profits from this half, is not in fact a loan at all and is held on trust on behalf of the financier. In this view, the financier will indeed retain priority over other creditors regarding not only the pikadon half of the Iska, but also the milveh half of the Iska. In fact, the Rif himself rules so explicitly, stating that other creditors have no recourse to recover their debts from the Iska funds, even from the milveh half, and the entirety of these funds (or goods purchased with them) are returned to the Iska financier.
Now, it is true that the Rif does not explicitly discuss the creditors’ claims during the recipient’s lifetime, but rather is discussing a case nowadays, after the Takanas haGeonim, when creditors can recover debts even from metaltelin of a deceased. However, presumably he would hold the same in a situation when the recipient was still alive and became insolvent.2 The funds are being
2 In fact, the Rif says that “now that he has died it returns to the owner.” This might imply that were the recipient to be alive, the Iska agreement having not ended, the milveh half is in fact considered a loan and thus available to all creditors, and only after he dies does it revert back to the financier. This approach might help to defend the Shach’s opinion (Shulchan Aruch, C.M., 99:7) from the difficulty raised by the Tumim (99:6), Ketzos Hachoshen (99:1), Nesivos Hamishpot (99:2) et al. However, this would be difficult to understand. If the loan half is a fully-fledged loan belonging to the recipient in his lifetime, how does it “jump back’ to the ownership of the financier when the recipient dies? More likely, the Rif would agree that the same thing applies in the recipient’s lifetime, and the reason he discusses a situation after the recipient’s death is because in his lifetime, during the agreed period for the Iska agreement to run, the financier can anyway not ask for his money back, even the pikadon half (see Shulchan Aruch, C.M. 176:23), and only when the death of the recipient brings the Iska arrangement to an end does the question become relevant.
hold on trust for the financier until such time as the purpose of the loan has
been carried out.
So we see that in the Rif’s view (adopted too by the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D.
177:31), 3 even though half the Iska sum is considered a loan, it is nonetheless
protected from the recipient’s other creditors. Although the recipient accepts
liability for it and thus keeps any profits accrued from this half of the Iska,
nonetheless because the loan was extended for a specific purpose (i.e.to
invest along with the pikadon half) it is considered as being held in trust for
the financier, who therefore has priority over other creditors in the event that
the recipient becomes insolvent.
3 Although see Shulchan Aruch, C.M., 67:3 and Urim Vetumim there
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E
3. What do we have to be careful with when illustrating to others about tzoraas?
torahanytime.com
More than 20,000 Torah videos & over 400 different speakers
www.mastertorah.comRav Meir Pogrow has a most ambitious goal: to enable the average layman, to learn and conquer the ENTIRE Torah – Tanach, Mishna, Gemara, and Rambam! As inconceivable as this sounds, he has already seen incredible success with hundreds of students around the world. Thousands of Mishnayos. Hundreds of Blatt Gemara. Sound too amazing to be true?
INVESTIGATING TZARA’ASRabbi Daniel FineMaggid Shiur, Aish Gesher and author of Journey through Nach PA
RS
HA
H
4
Gloves off. Sometimes it takes a thorough honest look into something to realise how little we understand of it. Often we understand things on first glance and only afterwards does it become apparent that we do not understand it at all! Tzara’as was one of those for me. When reading through the Chumash and basic commentaries, the idea seems quite simple: there are three forms of tzara’a: tzara’as on one’s body, on one’s clothes and on one’s house. If one speaks lashon hara (or indeed is haughty or money-grabbing) then one beckons this supernatural tzara’as malady - to be pronounced by a Kohen. It sounds simple enough, until one investigates further. I guess the clue to its complexity is that this is a supernatural malady which is only considered a malady once the Kohen declares it so, that the metzora must undergo an extensive cleansing process, and that there is a prohibition to remove this tzara’as. But let us look at this from an entirely different angle: thumbs out, let’s get deep in a Talmudic way.
Those of Talmudic persuasion will know the drill that whenever one finds a set or sequence in Jewish thought the first thing we ask is ‘to what extent are they considered one process or different notions?’ For example, are the ten plagues one set of ten or ten individual plagues to be celebrated separately and with different themes; how about the four species, the four heads of damages (avos nezikin), etc. We have three forms of tzara’as: that of the body, clothes and house - are these three forms of one thing or are they to be considered three separate notions/maladies with different themes and messages? Now anyone can pretend to be a(n amateur) surgeon in dissecting a concept
- the question is whether one can put it back together again via proofs and sources, etc. Let’s do just that...
For on the one hand one’s natural reaction would be that these three forms of tzara’as are simply versions of the same thing/part of one malady/process: they are all called tzara’as after all. Indeed, the Rambam at the end of hilchos tumas tazra’as takes from the Midrash the idea that the three forms of tzara’as come in sequence: first tzara’as vests itself upon your house, then if one doesn’t get the message and repent it hits one’s clothing and finally the body. Yet on the other hand the Torah splits the three: discussing two in parshas Tazria and the third in parshas Metzora. Significantly, the Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvos (#101-103) counts three separate mitzvos of tzara’as here (body, clothes and houses) instead of bundling them in one mitzvah. Indeed, Rav Chaim Brisker (Kisvei Rav Chaim, Succah) distinguishes between the three in essence: tzara’as on the body is the malady itself, whilst the clothes simply contract impurity from the tzara’as (the clothes are not considered one giant tzara’as), though contaminated houses are considered one big tzara’as item. So which is it: are the three one or three? Clearly the answer will have to be that there is some form of middle ground. There seems to be place for a chiddush in understanding here, based on two foundational points...
First, we said above (citing the Kli Yakar in fact) that tzara’as is a result predominantly of any one of three sins: lashon hara, stinginess/endlessly running after money and haughtiness. Crucially, these three sins involve failings on both a personal level and a societal scale. The societal level is straightforward: badmouthing, stinginess and haughtiness will hurt the functioning of society. Yet equally these sins are symptomatic of personal character failings and lowliness, even if they never end up hurting another: one who speaks badly of others has demeaned himself inasmuch as badmouthing is a lowly thing to do. Stinginess too is a statement about one’s own priorities in favouring one’s own gain (physical at that) over others and haughtiness is a personal flaw well before it hurts others.
Second, we may note that though the tzara’as on one’s body seems to be a ‘personal problem’, there are indications that the house form of tzara’as in fact pertains to a failing in society (or at least one’s conduct towards society): thus, the verses pertaining to this form of tzara’as begin with the entry to Eretz Yisrael (14:34) - this tzara’as will only become functional in Eretz Yisrael, where we became a real society when we accepted communal responsibility for each other (arvus). Next, as Rashi at the end of Maseches Sukkah spells out, the house tzara’as is actually the source for the concept of oy le’rasha oy le’shecheino - a wicked person will cause his neighbour too suffer too: for if the two’s houses shared a wall then the wicked person’s tzara’as would mean the wall being dismantled, with even the innocent neighbour suffering. This message is apropos for the house tzara’as which is about societal responsibilities and the effect of these three major sins on the community.
So each of the three tzara’as-causing sins have personal and communal aspects, and the house form of tzara’as is about the community, whilst presumably the bodily form of tzara’as is about the personal aspect of these sins. What about the clothes form?
On the one hand clothes are not as private as one’s skin, yet on the other hand they are not as public as an outer wall of one’s house. Clothes can be hidden yet are often not, and one can decide how often clothes are seen publicly etc. In concept, clothes are thus a bridge of sorts between the private and public spheres represented by the skin and house forms of tzara’as.
As Rav Hirsch puts it, the prohibition not to remove one’s tzara’as is telling us not to shirk responsibility: if one has a flaw then deal with it, don’t just remove its outer expression. Yet we are being taught a critical lesson when it comes to tzara’as and dealing with flaws. Flaws can have two facets: the personal and their effect on society - and both must be examined. Yet (and here’s where the ‘bridge’ of tzara’as of the clothes comes in) both elements should not only be examined independently and separately: they also need to be examined together for they are intertwined. Therefore, whilst one can and must remedy personal failing and their effect on society, one must understand that the two are connected at root: one’s personal being, character, deeds and essence are an intrinsic part of society too. That is the message of tzara’as of the clothes form, a message enshrined in the consequent purification of the metzora in which the metzora is separated temporarily, then purified and comes before a Kohen to become pure (the Kohen being the symbol of a person who has a prominent public office/societal focus yet is a glimmering spiritual individual too) before being replanted into society.
The concept is echoed by Chazal’s advice regarding how to genuinely infuse oneself with care for others in the ve’ahavta le’reacha kamocha vein. For as many commentaries point out (the Ramban, Sforno, Netziv, Rav Hirsch), one is created with a natural predisposition towards oneself - we care about ourselves more than we do about others. So how can we fully care for and empathise others? Chazal tell us that the key is simply to expand the sense/definition of ‘me.’ True, I care about ‘me’, but if my ‘me’ includes my wife, my kids and family - if I bring them into my ‘me’ definition then I care about them in a major way too. And if I can develop the sensitivity to regard others, the entire Jewish People, etc. as part of my ‘me’ then I care about them in a deep way too.
Thus, the three forms of tzara’as are three inasmuch as they are concentrating on different themes: the self, the society and the place where the two merge. Yet they are also one inasmuch as they convey one unified theme and message: responsibility and real self-assessment comes with seeing one’s own character for what it is and realising that it is part of a societal, communal, and national entity.
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E 4. Where from Parshas Metzora do we find how we have to be careful about other peoples’ possessions?
There are a few weeks available to sponsor the Oneg for a simcha or a loved one
Contact [email protected] [only £500]
PAR
SH
AHTHE ETERNAL SIMCHA
Rabbi Mashiach KelatyRabbi of Stanmore United Synagogue Sephardi Kehilla
5
For when you arrive in the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession I will place a tzaraas affliction upon a house in the land of your possession. (Vayikra 14:34)
If you ask your average person for the underlying cause behind the metzorah’s malady, he will almost definitely respond ‘lashon hara’. And he would be right. But there are in fact seven negative actions and character traits cited by Chazal in Meseches Arachin 16a. One of the less well known causes for tzaraas is tzarus ayin – stinginess, which ultimately comes from selfishness.
The great Sephardic Gaon, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay, otherwise known as the Chida, ZT”L, derives this from the above pasuk. Why does the Torah emphasize that the house in which the plague is discovered is in “a house in the land of your possession”? Why does it not simply say, “In your house”? He explains that a person who has merited receiving from Hashem a beautiful and spacious home must realise that he has this home, by compliments of the Al-mighty for a specific reason: to provide for others who need a place to rest and to feed the needy. Hashem gave him his home, so that others can also benefit from his good fortune. One should never forget that “I gave you (the land) as a possession.” What we have is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu – for a reason and a purpose. One who has tzarus ayin, who cannot tolerate sharing his blessing with those who are not as fortunate as he, who ignores the reality that his home is G-d’s gift to him, puts himself at risk of losing his gift, chas veshalom.
He will suddenly notice a plague on the walls of his home. If this warning remains unchecked, he will then notice discolourations on his clothing. No, he did not mix whites with coloureds. This is stage two in the warning process. Should this stage be ignored, the next stage is bodily tzaraas. And from this, nobody escapes. He literally sticks out like a sore thumb. After the contamination period has ended, he is obligated to bring an offering consisting of two birds. There is a profound lesson to be derived these offerings. Wealth does not last forever. One day it is here, but the next day it may very well be in the possession of another person, just like birds who spread their wings and fly away. Try catching
one and see how far it will get you. A bird can be within grasp at any one moment, but the moment it even suspects that you are making your move, it is history – fleeing faster than a teenager being asked to help with Pesach cleaning.
The Gemara in Eruvin 54a, famously compares this world to a bei hillula – a wedding hall. The Ahavas Yisrael of Vishnitz, zt’’l makes an interesting point. Why does the Gemara compare this world to a wedding hall and not an actual wedding. He explains that one who enters a wedding hall on any given night will be met with music, joy and festivity – and the odd overzealous photographer (ahem).
All the guests have scrubbed up well, the caterer has cooked up a storm, the hall is more finely bedecked than the bride. People are dancing to the strains of sweaty musicians as they skip round the bride or groom (depending of which side of the mechitza you are) – prompting to dance in the slow or fast lane, depending on age/health/.
The upshot of all of this is, that a wedding day is a day infused with joy. The simcha is so real that you could almost cut it with a knife. But at the end of the day, when the cleaner goes home and the caretaker locks the door, it is the end of that simcha. The next day, the hall hosts a new couple. A new band. Caterer. Flowers. Photographer. Almost every night, that hall sees another simcha.
If that hall could only talk.
That wedding hall can be compared to life in this world. One day, Reuven is doing well; everything he does seems to go right for him. His material concerns seem to be non-existent. Everything is just great – today. Tomorrow might be another story. The wealth that was Reuven’s one day might become Shimon’s the next. Just like a wedding hall. There are always sounds of joy, but it is never that of the same person. We have a choice: We can either enjoy it while it lasts or have the foresight to invest it in the lives and needs of others, so that the capital gains will endure long after the principal is gone.
We have the choice to make our simcha last for longer than one day. Make sure you realise that whatever you have is a gift to be used to benefit others. In that way, our simcha is eternal.
Check out Rabbi Kelaty’s shiurim on
www.torahanytime.com/speakers-list/rabbi-mashiach-kelaty/
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E
5. How many famous metzoroim in Jewish History can you think of?
With tremendous thanks to the generous donors and sponsors
who have given the Oneg Shabbos a lifelineThank You!
SHABBOS HAGODOL
EXTRACT FROM THE SHABBOS HAGODOL DRASHA IN 1942By Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Unsdorfer zt’l
The son of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman zt’l, Rav and Maggid of Pressburg, Simcha Unsdorfer was taken to Auschwitz at the age of 19. His parents
were murdered on arrival but Simcha survived to return to his family home after liberation. He found the house in ruins, but managed to
salvage some his father’s weekly droshos from the burned out remains. Many were prefaced by a diary of the week’s events.
6
It is Motzoei Shabbas Parshas T’zav. In the past week there was great fear and upheaval, rachmana litzlon, beyond measure. On Sunday we started Shacharis as normal in our Beis Hamedrash Mevakshei Torah at 8.30. This is because of the curfew not allowing us in the streets before 8.
Then, during p’sukei d’zimrah, five or six Nazis entered the shul and struck me - bechasdei Hashem just one time - and they broke my glasses. They announced that they were going to smash the oron hakodesh and break the other contents of our shul. But then after a few minutes, bechasdei Hashem, they went away.
Then on Monday there happened something which we had deeply feared for many days, Hashem yerachem. They came during the night to Jewish homes to take girls of 16 and over for forced labour. The morning brought scenes of distraught parents crying as daughters were pulled from their arms.
The rest of the week was filled with worry over the fate of taken daughters and fears that the Nazis would soon come for the men. I had no mind to prepare any drosho. Then, on Erev Shabbos Hagodol, about half an hour before davening, there was alarm and commotion as they came for the boys. To my house they also came, searching for my son Simcha Bunem. But, bechasdei Hashem, I was able to show them that he had travelled to the nearby town of Nitra for medical reasons. So they left on their way, bechasdei Hashem yisborach shemo
– may His name be exalted for the kindnesses He has shown us and will continue to bestow on me and my household.
With all the upheaval, I didn’t know if I would be giving any drosho the next day, but on Shabbos morning baalei batim still came to shul, along with those sons who remained free. And I said the following…
EVERYTHING GOES K’SEDERHoh Lachmoh Anyoh ! Woe that we find ourselves in such troubled times as
these. That Kol Dichfin, anyone who has evil plans for us, Yeysei Veyechol Osonu … they come to consume us. Kol Ditztrich, those who need to do us harm and spill our blood, Yeysei Veyifsach Oleynu … they turn us into a korban.
But even with such bitter maror, we still have symbols of freedom as we dip twice and lean back comfortably in our chairs. This is why the night is called Seder – because everything goes k’Seder, according to the plan that the A-mighty has for us, His people.
When we get to maggid, we will ask ourselves: where are the children who would ask us the questions of the Mah Nishtana? Where is our simcha this yomtov?
And yet, even in these perilous times, yidden have still come to shul to daven, to listen to divrei Torah and to fulfil the mitzvos in preparing for Pesach.
In this merit, in the words of the Haftorah: שלח אנכי הנה הנביא אליה את behold I will send to you Eliyahu Hanovi … לכם,
and he shall return the heart of the והשיב לב-אבות על-בנים, ולב בנים על-אבותם ……fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIM
E 6. In a leap year, (like 5776), Parshas Metzora falls as the week before Pesach. How is this significant?
This page has been kindly sponsored by the
RACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST
PAR
SH
AH
HA
LAC
HA
H
Follow Rabbi Wiesenfeld’s shiurim on torahanytime.com
MY WEEKLY HALACHIC QUESTIONRabbi Avi WiesenfeldRosh Kollel, Yerushalayim and Rav at Kav Halachah Beis Horaah H
ALA
CH
AH7
Eiruv Tavshilin [Part 2]WHAT SHOULD BE USED TO MAKE AN EIRUV TAVSHILIN?
Q. What should be used as the eiruv tavshilin?
A. The Gemara says that one may cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos only if one prepared, before Yom Tov, a cooked item, and one may bake only if one prepared a baked item. Consequently, the eiruv should consist of both a cooked and a baked item. However, if one intends only to cook and not bake, one need only prepare a cooked item as an eiruv. Nevertheless, one should be stringent and prepare both a cooked and a baked item as the eiruv tavshilin in every case.1 This is for a number of reasons:
• Hiddur mitzvah.
• Placing a pastry item or cold challah on the blech or in the oven constitutes baking, and thus requires a baked item as part of the eiruv tavshilin.
• Some maintain that shallow frying has the status of baking.
For these and other reasons, one should prepare both a cooked and baked item as one’s eiruv tavshilin.
Q. What types of foods may be used as the eiruv tavshilin?
A. Any type of food may be used, provided that it is eaten together with bread (for example, potatoes or cooked vegetables (i.e., tzimmas). One should not use fruits or oatmeal (even cooked) since they are not eaten with bread. The minhag in most places is to use a challah/matzah and a boiled egg. (The egg should not be peeled, as it must not be left overnight peeled.)
• It is a hiddur mitzvah to use (cooked) meat or fish as the eiruv tavshilin.2
• One may even use frozen items (although it is best to wait until they are defrosted).
• Burekas are considered like “bread” for an eiruv tavshilin.
• If one does not have matzah or challah, one may use a mezonos cake or biscuits.
• The food should be fully cooked before Erev Yom Tov.
• Some poskim allow cooked liquid to be used, provided that a revi’is of the cooked liquid was set aside for the eiruv. According to this opinion, one may use items like pasteurized milk and mevushal wine.
Q. May one make an eiruv tavshilin using a food that he himself does not eat?
A. Its best to use a food that one eats himself, but if such a food was not used, the eiruv is still valid (provided that the food was kosher).3
• Consequently, one who does not eat machine matzos on Pesach should not use them for his eiruv tavshilin on Pesach.
Q. How large must the eiruv portions be?
A. One should set aside food the size of a k’beitzah, even for a large family. Nevertheless, if one set aside a k’zayis, it still works. When using fish or meat, a substantial piece should be used. Similarly, when using bread or matzah, a whole loaf/roll or matzah square should be used.
Q. Do the foods need to be cooked specifically for the eiruv tavshilin or is it enough to simply designate something previously prepared?
A. It does not have to be specifically cooked for this purpose, but it is a hiddur mitzvah to do so.4 The baked item need not be baked specifically for the eiruv tavshilin.
1 Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah 2.2 Shelah Hakadosh brought in Mishnah Berurah 8.3 Shu”t Divrei Shalom 4:91 brought in Netei Gavriel – Hilchos Yom Tov Book 2.4 Biur Halacha 6, Shaar Hatzion 44.
MAKING THE EIRUV
Q. How is the eiruv tavshilin made?
A. The two foods (the cooked item and the baked item) should be held in one’s right hand and the beracha should be recited together with the accompanying text, without interruption between them.
THE BERACHAH RECITED UPON MAKING AN EIRUV TAVSHILINברוך אתה ה’ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות ערוב.
THE TEXT OF THE EIRUV TAVSHILIN DECLARATION
בהדין ערובא יהא שרא לנא לאפויי ולבשולי ולאטמוני ולאדלוקי שרגא ולתקנא ולמעבד כל צרכנא מיומא טבא לשבתא.
FOR ONE SAYING IT IN ENGLISH“Through [the cooked and baked items of] this eiruv it shall be permitted
for us to bake, cook, completely insulate hot foods, light a candle [from an existing flame], transport outside a private domain, and make all of the
necessary preparations on Yom Tov for Shabbos.”
FOR ONE SAYING IT IN YIDDISH
“דורך דיעזען ערוב זייא אונז ערלויבט צו באקען, צו קאכען, דיא שפייזען ווארם צו ערהאלטען, ליכטער אנצוצינדען אונד אבערהויפט אללעס נעטיגע
פאן יום טוב אויף שבת צו פערריכטען.” )מובא בקיצור שו”ע(
• Once should wash his hands in order to make the beracha with clean hands.
• If it is difficult to hold both items in the right hand, the cooked food should be held in the right and the baked item in the left.
• If the foods cannot be held by hand, one may merely have the foods resting in front of him at the time he says the beracha.
• The cooked food may be wrapped up at the time the eiruv is made in order to protect the bread/matzah.
• One must understand what he is saying in order for the eiruv to be valid. (The text of the eiruv may be recited in any language one understands.)
• It is commendable for one’s wife (or anyone in the family making preparations for Shabbos) to hear the beracha being recited, as the eiruv is generally for the preparations that she will be making on Yom Tov. Nevertheless, it is still valid if she does not hear the beracha.
• The eiruv tavshilin should be placed in a safe place for the duration of Yom Tov (e.g., in the refrigerator if using perishables).
NEW TO THE SET!!
New to the Set!
Please could you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home -as there have been few left in shuls.
This newsletter contains Divrei Torah and may contain Sheimos - please dispose of accordingly.
PAR
SH
AHSOMETHING LIKE AN AFFLICTION
Rabbi Yissochor FrandMagid Shiur, Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Baltimore PA
RS
HA
H8
Parshas Metzorah contains the laws of tzaraas on Houses. The Torah teaches: “When you arrive in the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession, and I will place a tzaraas affliction upon a house in the land of your possession; the one to whom the house belongs shall come and declare to the Kohen, saying: Something like an affliction has appeared to me in the house. (k’negah nireh li b’bayis)” [Vayikra 14:34-35].
Rashi points out that even a Torah scholar who knows full well that what he has seen is certainly tzaraas affliction, may only tentatively state “something appearing like an affliction has developed on the wall of my house.” Various interpretations are given as to why a person must express himself in this fashion. Some say it is an application of the principle “Do not open your mouth to Satan” (in other words, do not initiate the verbalisation of comments relating to misfortune occurring).
Tosfos YomTov offers an interesting interpretation. The Gemara states that one of the reasons Negaim appear is as punishment for haughtiness and arrogance (gasus haruach). We are trying to teach the person a lesson: Don’t be so sure of yourself. You cannot definitely state “It is a Nega.” You should state the facts with less confidence and self-assurance. Leave your declaration at
“Something like a Nega has appeared on my house.”
‘You got yourself into this trouble by being too sure of yourself. Forget the fact that you spent the last 25 years studying the Laws of tzaraas. Don’t be so arrogant. The tikun [antidote] to self-assurance is to retain some doubt about the correctness of your diagnosis. Say only “k’nega nireh li babayis.”
One of the components that is dipped into the blood of the slaughtered bird as part of the purification ritual for the afflicted house is eizov – a kind of moss. Rashi, quoting Chazal, explains that moss is a very low lying growth. We are sending the person a message that his problem resulted from an overabundance of arrogance and haughtiness. We are telling him “You have to start acting more like the eizov.”
The Sefas Emes asks a simple question. Why doesn’t the Kohen just come out and say that directly to the person: “You are too haughty!” Why is this message delivered so obliquely with this eizov ingredient in the bird purification ritual? Why are we beating around the bush, let’s tell him “You are a baal gayvah, you had this coming to you! Start acting more humbly and your problems will go away!” We do not do this. We deliver the message with extreme subtlety. Why?
The Sefas Emes answers that one cannot preach humility. Humility must be self-generated and self-inspired. Preaching the value of humbleness to a haughty person will fall on deaf ears. He needs to come to this realisation on his own. We try to send him messages that will cause him to introspect and inspire him to think “What have I been doing wrong?” He should think – why is it that out of all the plants in the world, they bring me moss? Hopefully, this will trigger the inspiration that must come from within — that it would be wise to be a bit more humble in the future.
1. The Targum of “tzoraas” is “sigurusa” that means
“closed”. This expresses that tzoraas comes and spiritually “closes off” a person.
2. The word “metzora” is a contraction of “moitzi ra” meaning someone who brings out (of his mouth) evil (words) and this is punished with tzoraas.
3. Rava says that one must not demonstrate two things on one’s own body
– shechting and tzoraas as then there could be the danger of it actually happening to that person. (See Rashi to Gittin 57b).
4. Rashi (14:36) brings that before the Kohen would see and pronounce a tumas nega that appeared on the walls of a house, the owner should empty out all his possessions, so that his earthenware pots will not need to be broken.
5. In the Torah it is Miriam (and Aharon – see Gemara Shabbos 97a) and Moshe’s hand (Shemos, 4:6). Pharaoh used the babies’ blood for a bath to cure him being a metzorah. Which other ones can you think of?
6. The Biur Halacha (428:4) brings that since we read about the breaking of earthenware pots (Metzora, 15:12) this is the same idea of hagolas keilim where we can to remove chometz.
ANSWERS