Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Charim: Is It Hekdesh

The possuk (27:28) says אַךְ־כׇּל־חֵ֡רֶם אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַחֲרִם֩ אִ֨ישׁ לַֽי״י֜ מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֗וֹ מֵאָדָ֤ם וּבְהֵמָה֙ וּמִשְּׂדֵ֣ה אֲחֻזָּת֔וֹ לֹ֥א יִמָּכֵ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יִגָּאֵ֑ל כׇּל־חֵ֕רֶם קֹֽדֶשׁ־קׇֽדָשִׁ֥ים ה֖וּא לַי״יֽ  The Ralbag explains חרם is הנה זה החרם הוא מה שיקדיש איש בזה הלשון שמורה על השחתה והפסד; והרצון בו שלא יגיע ממנו עוד תועלת לבעלים.  There are two ways one can understand this halacha.  Is it a regular act of making one’s property בדק הבית or is it a separate act of declaring the property חרם and that causes a chalos of hekdesh on the property? 
A simple proof can be brought from our parsha.  In regard to being makdish a שדה אחוזה its redeemed according to the set amount the Torah gives.  However, when one says his field is חרם then its redeemed according to its market value.

The Gemorah in Arachin 29a says that the law of חרמים to kohan only applies when the yoval applies.  Rashi understands that the same law applies to חרמים להקדש.  It seems from here that חרמים are distinct from regular hekdesh.

The Rambam writes in his perush hamishna Temurah (7:3) that charem is the same thing as kodshai bedek habais with just a different name.  It would seem that he holds that making a חרם is the same thing as making something hekdesh.  He follows לשיטתו in Arachin 8:11 and rules that the law of חרמים להקדש applies even when yoval doesn’t apply.  He holds חרמים to hekdesh has the same status as being makdish to bedek habais (based upon Mishnas Rav Aharon Nedarim #13, see there how he learns the Rambam differently.)

Two Types Of Fifths

Regarding one who redeems his own hekdesh it says (27:19) וְאִם־גָּאֹ֤ל יִגְאַל֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה הַמַּקְדִּ֖ישׁ אֹת֑וֹ וְ֠יָסַ֠ף חֲמִשִׁ֧ית כֶּֽסֶף־עֶרְכְּךָ֛ עָלָ֖יו וְקָ֥ם לֽוֹ.  In possuk 31 regarding redeeming one’s maser sheni it says וְאִם־גָּאֹ֥ל יִגְאַ֛ל אִ֖ישׁ מִמַּֽעַשְׂר֑וֹ חֲמִשִׁית֖וֹ יֹסֵ֥ף עָלָֽיו.  There is a difference in how the Torah refers to the owner of the hekdesh vs. the owner of the maser sheni.  When it comes to hekdesh it calls him/her the מקדיש but when it comes to maser shni s/he is called the owner, ממעשרו.  The reason for this difference is that when it comes to maaser, one is defined as the owner.  On the other hand, once someone makes something hekdesh, it is out of his/her possession and he is refereed to merely as the מקדיש.  This is illustrated by this Or Sameach in Arachin 7:2.

Temurah

The Gemorah (Temurah 3a-b) says that temurah is an exception to the normal rule that there is no punishment of lashes for a lav that is violated without an action.  Rav Yochanan doesn’t include it on the list for it is considered to have an action and that is the speech.  Seemingly this would fit the opinion of Rav Yochanon in Babba Metzia (92a) that one who muzzles an animal by yelling at it is considered to have violated the lav of חסימה through an action.  The Rambam (Temurah 1:1) rules like Rav Yochanon regarding muzzling the animal but not regarding temurah, why?

The Mishna in Temurah (14a) says that if the animal is owned by partners or collective ownership temurah can’t be done to the animal.  The Rambam says that even though they can’t create a temurah, the lav applies to them if they attempt to make a temurah.  We see that the Rambam holds the punishment isn’t for the chalos of the temurah, it for the act of the מעשה תמורה.  The Rambam sees in this halacha that the punishment isn’t because your speech caused a chalos, it’s because of the attempt to make the temurah.  Based upon this, we understand why the Rambam rejects Rav Yochanon in regard to temurah but accepts him in regard to muzzling the animal.  When it comes to muzzling the animal, the yelling at the animal is the cause of the חסימה and makes the person eligible to lashes.  However, regarding temurah, the speech doesn’t cause any action, it is the possuk that causes the chalos.  

The Maggid Mishna (Secherut 13:2) suggests that speech is considered an action only when the normal way of violating the lav is through an action.  Hence, when it comes to חסימה, since it is normally violated with a regular action, we consider speech an action as well.  However, תמורה which can only be violated with speech, then speech isn't defined as an action.  This idea needs an explanation, what kind of סברא is this that if the lav can be violated with an action then speech is defined as an action?

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

A Torah Man

בחוקותי תלכו according to Rashi refers to עמילות בתורה.  How does Rashi know the possuk means עמילות בתורה and not just reading Torah?  The Maharal says talachu indicates positive growth which is accomplished through amelut baTorah.  Why is it specifically amelut baTorah more than any other mitzvah which causes the person to grow, one can grow through other mitzvot or good deeds? 

There is a major difference between one who is amel baTorah vs. one who just fulfills mitzvot.  When a person does a mitzvah, he draws down a Godly light, but it is only temporarily, it doesn’t transform the person’s essence.  On the other hand, when one is amel baTorah he becomes a different person.  The Chazon Eish letter 13 says that one who toils in Torah becomes like a מלאך, the person is elevated to other level.  That is why one stands for a person doing a mitzvah, but one stands for a Talmud chacham even when he isn’t learning; the person is transformed by the Torah he learnt.  The Alter Rebbe says that בחוקותי is related to the word  חקיקה - engraved.  The Torah is not merely written on the person’s soul, it becomes engraved into the person, it is one with the person as illustrated in the story here.

 Rav Eliyah Lopyain explains the word talachu refers to amelut baTorah for a person’s learning should be recognizable even in his walking.  A Talmud chacham’s actions are on a different level.  This advantage of torah learning is only when one allows his mind to be washed over with the light of the Torah; that can be accomplished only through amelut; not by merely reading the words (see also Pachad Yitzchak Shavout #17 and footnotes of Rav Hartman to Maharal Derech Chayim Ch. 1 , footnote #1243.)

Why is learning Torah called a חק?  The Sfas Emes (5641) asks why is learning Torah called amal which generally means fruitless labor?  He explains that no matter how much a person toils to understand Torah it is beyond human grasp and is not a result of the person’s labor.  Even after all the יגיעה it is a mere מציאה (Megillah 6.)  Based upon this we understand that amelut baTorah is called a חק for it is illogical for a person to be able to grasp the wisdom of Hashem.  

Monday, May 27, 2019

Chiddush Of Rashi

וְכׇל־מַעְשַׂ֤ר בָּקָר֙ וָצֹ֔אן כֹּ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲבֹ֖ר תַּ֣חַת הַשָּׁ֑בֶט הָֽעֲשִׂירִ֕י יִֽהְיֶה־קֹּ֖דֶשׁ לַֽי״יֽ.  Rashi -  בין טוב לרע – בין תם בין בעל מום חלה עליו קדושה, ולא שיקרב בעל מום אלא יאָכל בעל מום בתורת מעשר ואסור ליגזז וליעבד.  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 12) points out that we see a chiddush in Rashi that there is a din that the מעשר בהמה animal must be eaten with intent that that it is a מעשר animal.

Always Connected

Rashi (26:42) says Yaakov is spelled with an extra vav for Yaakov took a vav from Eliyahu’s name to guarantee he will redeem Klal Yisroel.  How does the vav represent the guarantee of redemption and why is Yaakov willing to guarantee our redemption more than Eliyahu?  The Shem M'Shmuel explains based upon the Zohar which says the letter vav represents emet.  There are two levels of truth.  There is truth based upon how things appear and then there is a deeper level of truth where even what isn’t seen is takin into consideration.  Eliyahu follows the middah of emet, hence if Klal Yisroel sin, he doesn’t want to redeem them for they aren’t worthy.  Yaakov sees a deeper level of emet.  He sees that even if we sin its only because of the yetzer harah, however inside we truly remain connected to Hashem and are fitting for redemption.  Yaakov took a vav means he raised the level of emet of Eliyahu to his deeper level of emet.  The Shem M'Shmuel uses the same idea to explain the Gemorah in Megillah 25b which suggests not to translate the klallot for people will figure we will get punished anyway, so we might as well enjoy this world (translation of Rashi’s explanation of Gemorah there.)  The Gemorah concluded we aren’t worried about that.  Why not?  The Shem M'Shmuel says because Klal Yisroel always want to do the desire of Hashem.  (See a different explanation of why the vav is the guarantor here.)

The Zohar says on the verse (26:44) לֹֽא־מְאַסְתִּ֤ים וְלֹֽא־גְעַלְתִּים֙ לְכַלֹּתָ֔ם לְהָפֵ֥ר בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ם.  The Zohar has a play on words that כלותם is like the wordכלה .  It brings a parable that even if one’s bride is in the tannery and is absorbs a bad odor, not only will the groom still love her, but it will even appear to him that she smells nice.  So too, even if we sinned Hashem still desires us. 

The Shem M'Shmuel in Behar (5670) points out even one who sells himself to work for the avodah zarah Hashem still says כי לי בני ישראל עבדים about him.  Even one who falls to such a low level that he is working for the Church; Hashem still calls him His עבד.  That is the great love Hashem has for us.  That is because בפנימיות the person never becomes contaminated. 

The parsha after the קללות is ערכין.  What is the connection?  The Chozeh Melublin explains its coming to teach us that even if one is obligated to receive all the curses still s/he has tremendous value to Hashem.

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Repeated Verse

The last possuk in Behar is a repeat of the verse in Kedoshim (19:30) את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני ה'. Why does the possuk have to be repeated?  The Ramban understands that the verse is said specifically in regard to the slave of the gentile to tell us he is obligated in Shabbot and aliyah laregel and we learn out from there to all mitzvot.  This follows in the path of Rashi that brings this interpretation from the Torat Kohanim (however, it is noteworthy that Rashi omits the part of mikdash.)

The Sforno understands that it isn’t just a teaching for a slave to a gentile, it is a message to the body of Klal Yisroel in exile.  Even though Shabbot is a symbol of our freedom and we are under the jurisdiction of the gentiles, we still must keep it.  The message of מקדשי תיראו is to respect the shuls and study halls in the exile.

A third approach is set forth by the Even Ezra and Chizkuni that שבתתי refers to the  שמיטה years and מקדשי refers to the year of יובל.  This interpretation is difficult for why would יובל be called מקדש and why would this be written at the end of the parsha and not immediately after the laws of shmittah and yovel?

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Slaves And Yovel


כתוב בסוף הפרשה (כה:נה) כי לי בני ישראל עבדים עבדי הם אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים.  צריך להבין כפל הלשון כי לי בנ"י עבדים ועוד הפעם עבדי הם, מה מוסיף עבדי הם על המלים של כי לי בנ"י עבדים?

בפרשה של שמיטה כ' וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעית.  לפי כמה מפרשים השאלה על שנת היובל (עיין רמב"ן, אבן עזרא וכו') אבל רש"י למד השאלה על שנת השמיטה.  וידוע מר' צדוק שכל דבר שנכתב בתורה יש בו נקודת אמת ומהו נקודת האמת בהשאלה של מה נאכל? 

ויש לומר הביאור בכפל הלשון מרומז בהמילים בהמשך הפסוק אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים.  וביאור הענין שידוע קושיות תוס' למה הוצטרך הקב"ה לכוף את  כלל ישראל בקבלת התורה אי כבר אמרו נעשה ונשמע?  ויש להקדם דברי הבית הלוי שמתן תורה לא היה רק קבלת מצות אלא קבלת עבדות, קבלת עול מלכות שמים.  ולפ"ז י"ל (וכעין זה במהר"ל,) שיש מעלה ע"י כפייה לעבדות ממי שמי שמקבל מרצון עצמו.  מי שמקבל עבדות מרצונו, שמוכר עצמו לעבדות עדיין נשאר משהו של מהות עצמו משום שהוא בחר בהעבדות.  הוא נעשה עבד ובטל למישהו אסל כ"ז בא רק ע"י רצונו.  רק מי שבע"כ נכנס לעבדות אז בטל לגמרי כל הישות והרגשים של אני שלו שאז חסר לו כל רצון עצמו.  זהו כפל הלשון בפסוק, כי לי בנ"י עבדים היינו שכלל ישראל בחרו להיות עבדים של הקב"ה, ובנוסיף לזה עבדי הם, בע"כ אני עשיתי אותם עבדים כשהוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים היינו במתן תורה שכפה עליהם הר כגיגית (עפ"י אוה"ח, מאמר רני ושמחי פ' בהעלותך תשכ"ז הערה 27 וסוגיות בחסידות של ר' יואל קאהן מאמר נעשה ונשמע.)

וי"ל שכעין זה מרומז בשמיטה ויובל.  שמיטה הוא שנת השביעית, תכלית הטבע.  האדם מבטל הסדר הרגיל של עבודת הקרקע לציווי של הקב"ה.  אבל זה ביטול של סדר השתלשלות והאדם מבטל עצמו ויש מקום לשאלות.  אבל יש דרגה ג"כ למעלה מזו והיינו ביובל שזהו ביטול למעלה מהשתלשלות שאז לא נשאר משהו מעצמיות של האדם ואין שום מקום שהוא ישאל שאלות.   וזהו הטעם שכתבה התורה את השאלה לרמז לנו שאפי' בביטול לגמרי אבל אם זה רק איש שמבטל עצמו ולא שאין שום איש, עדיין יש כסרון בהביטול שלו.         

Overcharged

The Gemorah says that אונאה less than a sixth one doesn’t have to return.  The Gemorah says that the reason one doesn’t have to return the money is because the purchaser is מוחל that minute amount of money.  The Rosh Babba Metziah (Ch.4 siman 20) is unsure whether one is allowed to charge less than a sixth for its not part of the issur or it is forbidden just there is no need to return the money for the purchaser is willing to forgo this small difference in price.  According to the side that it is allowed one must understand the Gemorah that says its permitted because of מחילה is since it is the normal way for people to be מוחל in that situation, it isn’t part of the issur.  This doubt seems to be debated by the Chinuch (#337) on the side that its permitted vs. the Ramban (our parsha 25:15) who holds its prohibited. 

What we do see is that the issur of taking אונאה is not dependent on the obligation to return the overcharged amount.  That raises the question as to why there is no lashes for taking אונאה because its a לאו הניתן לתשלומין, we find the issur even without the need to return the money?  The Even Haezel explains that לאו הניתן לתשלומין is a din in the לאו.  The לאו is defined as a לאו which is a monetary לאו and therefore there is no punishment of lashes attached to it.  

The Torah never mentions explicitly that one must return אונאה that was taken from the buyer.  So how do we know that one must return the additional charge?  The Pnei Yehoshua Bava Metziah 56a explains that the additional charge is considered stolen goods and therefore must be returned.  The difficulty is that according to the Pnei Yehoushua every case of אונאה should become bittul mekach for the stipulation of the sale price is null and void?

Rav Chayim (Mechirah Ch. 15) says that the price tag still stands, and the money is considered to be payment for the object that was purchased; the money that must be returned is a separate obligation that the Torah imposes.  It is still unclear where do we see the Torah imposes such an obligation?

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Returning Ribbit

The Ramban in mitzvot asseh that the Rambam forgot to count #12 lists the commandment to return ribbit which is derived from the words וְחֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ עִמָּֽךְ (25:36.)  The Megillas Esther defends the opinion of the Rambam that its not counted as a mitzvah because its included in the commandment to return stolen goods.  What is this debate about? 

The Ritvah Babba Metziah 61a brings the opinion of the Geonim that the borrower can’t be מוחל the money that the lender owes him for taking ribbit.  He explains their reason is that its not a monetary obligation to return the ribbit, it’s an obligation like any other בין אדם למקום obligation.  This would fit with the Ramban that this is a separate mitzvah to return ribbit, it’s not a monetary obligation.  The Rambam goes לשיטתו according to the Megillas Esther that is a monetary obligation and holds מחילה works (Malveh 4:13.)

The Shulchan Aruch (based upon Rashba, 161:5) rules that we don’t collect money from the lender; we will force him to pay.  If it was a pure monetary obligation, we should collect from the lender like any money owned for a dept.  It would seem that the Shulchan Aruch holds it’s a mere mitzvah obligation to return the ribbit.  However, he rules (160:5) like the Rosh that the borrower can forgive the ribbit that the lender should pay him back.  From there it seems that it’s a monetary obligation, so what is it?

We see that the Shulchan Aruch holds that it is a mitzvah to return the ribbit.  However, we define the money as ribbit based upon the rules of choshen mishpat.  If the borrower forgives the money, then it is not considered as if there is any money of ribbit in the hands of the lender (see Likutay Sichos volume 12.)

There is of course more to say on this topic, תן לחכם וכו'.   

For those interested  see this link.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

13 And Rashbi

ידוע סיפור המובא בגמ' שבת לג שרשב"י היה במערה יב' שנים ואח"כ יצא והיה שורף אנשים שעסקו בחיי שעה.  הבת קול יצא שיחזור למערה ולמד שם עוד שנה ואז לא שרף את העולם.  להיפף מצינו בגמ' וכמה הדרשים שרשב"י לעולם עומד לזכות ישראל ומלמד עלינו זכות.  איך השקפתו נשתנה ע"י לימוד של עוד שנה במערה?  י"ל מה שרשב"י למד באותו שנה הוא איך שהתורה וכלל ישראל המה מקושרים זל"ז.  ודבר זה גופא מרומז ביג'.  יש יג' מדות שהתורה נדרשת ויש יג' מדות הרחמים ורק מי שידע לדרוש ביג' מדות הרחמים יכול לדרוש את התורה (עיין ליקוטי שושנה בסוף נועם אלימלך צט:) רשב"י זכה לגלות תורת הנסתר משום שהוא זכה לדרוש היג' מדות הרחמים על ישראל. יג' גימטריה אחד, הוא הכיר האחדות בין ישראל והתורה.  ולכן מצינו בכתובות עז: שרשב"י למעלה יושב על  תלת עשר תכטקי פיזא (ספסלי זהב.)  מה ענינו של יג' ספסלי זהב?  הם השכר להשלמת יג' מדות שהתורה נדרשת ורחמים שלו.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Din Avelus

The Rambam positive commandment #37 says that we learn out from the commandment to a kohan to become tamah to his relatives that there is a commandment of avelus, to mourn over one’s dead relative.  The Rambam in the beginning of the laws of Avel cites the possuk of לא אכלתי חטאת היום as the source to the law of avelus.  So, what is the source?  The Achronim explain that the source is from the commandment to a kohan to become tamah.  The possuk at the beginning of the laws of Avel is to teach us that avelus is only one day, the seven days are only Rabbinic. 

It is clear that the Rambam holds part of avelus is the aspect of becoming tameh to the relatives.

The Rambam Avel 2:6 maintains that that woman kohanot aren’t included in the mitzvah of becoming tamah to relatives.  The Raavad disagrees.  Why does the Rambam hold woman aren’t included in the mitzvah?  He holds the mitzvah is only given to one who is normally forbidden to become tamah.  The mitzvah shows us the importance of becoming tamah by appling even to those that are forbidden to become tamah; hence it only applies to kohanim, not kohanot.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Rights Of Eating

Rashi 22:12 explains that the possuk קנין כספו tells us that the wife of a kohan eats teruma.  Rashi also brings in Bamidbar 18:11 the Sifri has a derash that we learn out from כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו that the wife of a kohan eats teruma.  Why do we need two sources?  The Gur Aryeh explains that קנין כספו teaches us even if just אירוסין  was done she can eat teruma.  The second possuk, כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו teaches us even if he didn’t make her קנין כספו, it is his יבמה, she still eats teruma. 

Rav Shmuel Rozovski (Kiddushin 10a) suggests that the two derashot are distinct.  If we just have the derasha from קנין כספו then she eats teruma like a slave, she eats because of the husband.  However, the derasha of כל טהור tells us she has her own rights to eat teruma.  It is because of this second derasha that one can fulfill their obligation of giving teruma by giving it to her. 

The Gemorah in Yevamot (66a) says slaves of a kohan that buy slaves may feed them teruma.  The Chinuch (280) limits that to the second slave.  If it’s a slave that buys a slave that buys a slave, the third level slave may not eat teruma.  Rebbe Akiva Eger points out that the Rambam in Terumot 7:18 seems to disagree for he says if the slaves of the wife of a kohan purchase slaves then they can eat teruma even though its three times removed from the kohan.  However, based upon the derasha that a woman is considered to be eating in her own right, we don’t have to say there is a disagreement.

Sefirah Chinuch

Rashi explains the double language of emor ve’amrtah teaches us that the gedolim must warn the ketonim on the issurim to kohanim.  The word that Rashi uses to say warn is lehazher which can also be translated as zohar-shine.  Chinuch isn’t supposed to be superimposing additional rules on the katon, it is to bring out that shine that is buried within the child.  להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים, through teaching the teacher will gain rays of light as well.  It is by giving to others that the best of the teacher/parent is brought out (see Likutay Sichos volume seven.) 

Sefiras Haomer is the chinuch of Klal Yisroel for kabbalas hatorah.  The possuk (25:15) says usfartem lachem.  Why the extra word lachem?  Why is the korban omer called omer because of its measurement, why is this significant?  The Ksav Vekabalah explains that lachem means for your benefit (like Rashi says at the beginning of Lech Lecha.)  The word seferah is related to sappirah-sapphire, which is something clear and shiny.  The count of the omer is not just a count of a day, it is a count toward purity.  The possuk means וספרתם לכם, purify yourself in order to be ready to accept the Torah.  Hashem gives us the time of sephirah to reveal the pure, untainted holiness that exists within us.  Hashem is being mechanech us for the acceptance of the Torah.  That’s why the korban is called an omer.  Omer can mean servitude (as in לא תתעמר בה in beginning of Ke Tatzah.)  We are counting towards the day when we learn what we really should be applying ourselves too; the Torah.  On Peach the korban omer is waved to indicate that all the four corners of the world and the winds represented by the waiving is all a means to the end.  The success that is obtained in the material world is so that we have peace of mind in order to focus on the Torah.    

One of the famous questions asked about Shavous is why is there no mention in the Torah of it being the holiday where we accepted the Torah?  Rav Eliyah Lopian answers that the Torah wants to highlight that what is necessary for kabbalas hatorah is our preparation for it.  Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah as Shavous indicating that it’s the weeks of preparation that make the Yom Tov.  It is our acceptance of Hashem’s chinuch that matters.

Terumah Payment

The Mishna in Terumot 7:2 says that a kohanet that marries a yisroel (and now can no longer eat teruma,) and subsequently eats teruma pays the value of the teruma but not the additional value of the fifth that one must normally pay when eating teruma by accident.  She is exempt from the fifth because that obligation is only on one who is a זר their whole life, not one who becomes a זר.  If that is the case, why must she pay the value of the teruma?  The Rash explains that she must pay like any other stolen goods.  According to this explanation, she must pay only if she took the teruma from another kohan.  However, if she owned the teruma she wouldn’t need to pay.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Emunah Terumot 10:12 ס"ק קפד cites Rishonim that indicate she must pay even if it doesn’t belong to a kohan (see Rashi Sanhedrin 51a , Ramah there and Ri ben Malki Tzedek on the Mishna.)  Why would they disagree, what other reason would there to have to pay? 

The Emunat Yehosha (#139) says that we see from the passukim that there are two reasons to pay for the teruma that is eaten.  It says in 22: 14 "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it to it and give the kohen the holy thing.  15 And they shall not desecrate the holy things of the children of Israel, those that they have set aside for the Lord,  16 thereby bringing upon themselves to bear iniquity and guilt, when they eat their holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them."  We see that there is a desecration of the chefta and a sin on the gavra. 

If one eats the teruma במזיד s/he only pays the value of the teruma, not the additional fifth.  The Rambam (perush hamishna 7:1) explains that the sin is too great to be atoned for by paying an additional fifth.  If could be that the sin that’s not atoned for is the sin on the gavra but the desecration of the cheftza of teruma requires one to pay the basic value of the teruma. 

In a similar vein we can explain the aforementioned din.  The daughter of the kohan doesn’t have to pay as atonement for the sin of the gavra but she must pay the base value of the teruma because of the desecration of the cheftza.

Forced Mazid

Rashi (24:21) says the Torah spells out the name Shlomis bas Divri to tell us only she was a zonah but no one else was.  The Mizrachi asks why is she called a zonah if Rashi in Shemos explains how she was אנוס?  He says even though she didn’t willingly violate an issur, there still was an act of znus so she is called a zonah.  Levush says since it happened because of her being too outgoing and speaking to everyone it called her fault.  Sounds like there arguing if one put himself into a situation where they are susceptible to sin if it’s called a מזידor not.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Two Counts

The Gemorah Menachos 65b says וספרתם לכם tells us that every individual must count.  Tosfos explain that we would have thought there is an obligation only on בית דין like the counting of the years of shmittah, קמ"ל there is an obligation on every individual.  Why would we have thought there is only an obligation on the בית דין if it is a mitzvah like any other?  The Chizkuni in Behar says that in regard to shmittah the Torah mentions the counting once and its merely an obligation on the בית דין.  Siferas Haomer is mentioned in Reah and in Emor to tell us there is an obligation on the בית דין and an obligation on the individual.  He holds even at the end of the day there remains an element of obligation on the בית דין alone.  What is the nature of this obligation?

In regard to the counting of the shmittah cycle Reb Chaim explains that the mitzvah isn’t merely to count but that it is the count of the cycle that gives the kedusha to the year of yovel.  The Torah calls the holiday Shavout indicating that it is the חפצא of the counted weeks that give the kedusha to the holiday.  Therefore, we would have said (and according to Chikuni we do say,) that the counting is part of establishing the holiday and has to be done by בית דין just as they are entrusted with being מקדש the months. 


Based upon this idea we can understand the Gemorah in Menachot 66a that Amemar counted the days but not the weeks because it is a mere זכר למקדש.  It is צ"ע why not count the weeks as well because of זכר למקדש?  However, in light of the Chizkuni it is beautiful for the counting of the weeks is mentioned in Reah where it says וספרת לך meaning to ב"ד that they must count the weeks.  It is in Emor where the Torah says to count the days and it says וספרתם לכם, an obligation on every individual.  Therefore, the mitzvah onב"ד  is the weeks so there is no זכר למקדש for the individual to do it, is it only the mitzvah to count the days that there is זכר למקדש for every individual (Eretz Hatzvi (Shecter) siman 3 and footnote 3, see also Bad Kodesh on Moadim.)

Potential

The Sforno (22:27) notes that one may not sacrifice an animal that has a blemish even if its worth more than the complete animal that one will bring in its stead.  Why is something which is whole better than what’s incomplete if the incomplete animal is worth more?  The lesson is that everything is judged based upon its potential.  An animal which is complete has met its potential and is desired for a korban.  On the other hand, an animal which is incomplete even though its worth more the blemish represents the lack of reaching potential.  Hashem wants us to reach our heights.  That isn’t measure by the standards of others.  Even if someone else may be greater, if he hasn’t reached his potential, the one who has succeeded to the utmost is desired more.

The Sfas Emes writes in a letter that one who can only learn 2 hours a day and does is greater that one who can learn 12 hours but only learns 10.  One person reached his potential and the other didn't. 

Tochacha And Arvut

Targum Unkles (see Ramban as well) and Sharei Teshuva (3:72) explain (19:17) הוכיח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא  refers to one that doesn’t rebuke his/her friend that they carry the burden of the sin as well.  Rav Elchonan Wasserman (Betzah #67) says we see that they are of the opinion that the mitzvah of תוכחה  is an outgrowth of the din of ערבות.  ערבות  is what teaches us that one bears the sin of another if one has the wherewithal to object to the sin (see Sanhedrin 27b.)  We see that they hold that תוכחה  is tied into the obligation of ערבות.  The Yad Shaul uses this principle to explain Rashi in Sanhedrin 75a ד"ה ואם איתא  that there is no mitzvah of תוכחה  for a גר תושב.  Why is there no mitzvah for a גר תושב?  He explains since they aren’t included in ערבות, there is no mitzvah to rebuke them.  

Last week I cited the Mishna Berura that brings the Yereim that even when one won’t be listened to there is an obligation of rebuke.  The Beiur Halacha however, proves that there is no obligation of ערבות in that situation. 

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (608:5) says the opposite.  He says that its ערבות  that is the cause of the obligation to give rebuke even if it won’t be heeded (this is the opposite of the way the Beur Halacha understands the Yereim that there is no ערבות in that situation but there is a mitzvah of תוכחה.)  In fact, in 156:7 the Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that the mitzvah of תוכחה  applies only to a friend that will listen to the rebuke that s/he is being told.  This opinion runs contrary to the Yereim but it supported by the Ritva in Betzah 30a that explains the obligation to rebuke someone else if it won’t be heeded is because of the principal of ערבות.  That means in his view one is viewed as responsible for the sin as long as s/he doesn’t object to it.

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Rebuke For Yourself

The Rambam in listing the commandment of תוכחה as #205 on his list (which I’m still looking for an explanation as to what kind of order the Rambam is using,) lists the commandment of תוכחה.  He explains the mitzvah is to stop someone else from sinning, למנוע אותו ממנו.  He follows this הגדרה in Daot 6:7 that the mitzvah is להחזירו למוטב.  Following this logic, it should come out that if one knows that the recipient of his/her rebuke will not adhere to the words being thrown at them, that there is no obligation of rebuke.  Indeed, that it the opinion of the Smag עשה  #11 (as cited in Beiur Halacha 608.)  In fact, it may be according to the Rambam that if one can stop the sinner via kind words instead of harsh words, then the mitzvah of תוכחה must be performed in that manner (heard from Rav Chayim Shalom Deutsh in the name of Rav Levi Ginzburg.)  

However, the Beuiur Halacha also cites the dissenting opinion of the Rav Eliezer M’mitz and it is clear from the Rosh in the name of the Baal Haetur in Betzah 30a that they disagree and hold even if the rebuke won’t be accepted there still is an obligation of תוכחה.  What is their reasoning, what’s the point of shouting empty words? 

One approach (set forth by Dibros Moshe Shabbos siman 42 and Bircas Avrohom Betzah) is that they hold of any entirely different גדר of the mitzvah.  They don’t maintain the point of the mitzvah is to stop the sinner from sinning, rather the point is for the rebuke, he shall not stand idle and let his eyes see sin happening.  The point of the mitzvah isn’t to help the one being rebuked, it’s to help the one giving the rebuke so that he isn’t influenced by the negative behavior that s/he is witnessing. Hopefully more on this in the future so stay tuned.

Fab Five

התורה הקד' מלמד אותנו את האיסור שיש על פירות ערלה בג' שנים אחרי נטעיית האילן ועל דין מיוחד שלו בשנה הרביעית.  וכ' בפסוק (יט:כה) לגבי שנה חמישית כדי להוסיף לכם תבואתה.  ועל פי פשוטו היינו שיש שכר לשמירת מצות האלו שיוסיף לכם תבואה.  אבל יש פה גם משהו עמוק יותר, בפנימיות התורה מגלה לנו שתכלית מצות אלו הוא כדי להגיע לפירות של שנה החמישית.  עיקר המכוון והשיא הוא אכילת הפירות שהם חולין בעלמא.  ובאותיות הקבלה שהביא אדמו"ר הזקן בפרשתנו הוא שד' השנים הראשונים של האילן הן כנגד ד' אותיות שם הויה ושנה החמישית כנגד קוצו של י'.  איך אומרים שפירות של השנה החמישית שהם חולין בעלמא הם העיקר?  מסביר הרבי בלק"ש ח"ז שהקב"ה רוצה שגם בהחולין ימשיך קדושה.  זו היא המעלה גדולה הכי גדולה, שגם פירות של חולין יאכל אותם בקדושה.

וזהו היסוד של קדושה כדי להמשיך אור של אלוקות בתוך החולין

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Love Thy Neighbor, Love God

רש"י מפרש כ' בריש פרשתנו דבר אל כל עדת ישראל משום שפרשה זו נאמרה בהקהל לפי שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה הבעלי מוסר מעוררין שלמידין מכאן שאין פירוש של קדושה פירוד מבני אדם להיות סגור ומסוגרת אלא להיות מעורב אם הבריות.  למה קדושה שייך רק במי ששייך להכלל 
ידוע הסיפור אם הלל (שבת לא) שאמר לגר מה דעלך סני, לחברך לא תעבד והוא יסוד כל התורה כולה והשאר פירוש בעלמא הוא.  ובירושלמי (נדרים ט:ד) מבואר שאמר לו היסוד הוא ואהבת לרעך כמוך.  והכל שואלין תינח מצות שבין אדם לחבירו אבל איך זה יסוד של כל המצות שבין אדם למקום?  וי"ל ביאור הדברים הוא שמהות המימרא של ואהבת לרעך היינו ביטול האגו, ביטול היש של האוהב.  מי שאין לו מקום בלבו לאהוב איש אחר א"א לו לאהוב הקב"ה.  רק מי שמוכן לאהוב איש אחר ואינו מלא באהבת עצמו יש לו היכולת לאהוב את הקב"ה.  מי שפרוש מן העולם אולי אינו בגלל אהבה להקב"ה אלא לטובת עצמו שהוא רוצה להיות קדוש לטובת עצמו ולעלות במדרגות להקב"ה. האבן הבוחן לדעת אם האדם הוא קדוש לאלוקיו או קדוש לעצמו הוא אם האדם מוכן לתת לאחרים.  מי שמקיים ואהבת לרעך יודע שהוא קדוש לאלוקיו.

Weighty Measures

This is written with improper research.

The Chinich #258 says that the prohibition of having false weights applies even to less than a שוה פרוטה.  The Minchas Chinuch wonders where his source is. 

The Gemorah Babba Metzia (61b) says that this issur isn’t derived from the issurim of stealing for one violates it immediately when the false measurement is made, even before its used.  The Minchas Chinuch asks why didn’t the Gemorah answer that it teaches us even less than a שוה פרוטה is prohibited?  However, it is possible that the Chinuch is coming only after the conclusion of the Gemorah that we see one is obligated even before he causes a loss of money that it isn’t a monetary issur and the Gemorah in Babba Metzia is the source of the Chinuch.  

Tosfos in Babba Bathra (89b) ד"ה ובמשורה seems to say exactly like the Gemorah in Babba Metzia.  The Achronim ask what is Tosfos teaching us; it’s an open Gemorah?  They explain that the Gemorah is asking on the word משקל  and Tosfos is asking on משורה why is that needed and Tosfos answers there is a chiddush that one is obligated even though he didn’t change the actual measurement, he just didn’t measure properly.  The Achronim prove from Tosfos that didn’t answer less than a שוה פרוטה that they disagree with the Chinuch.  However, based upon what we said previously there is no proof for Tosfos answered in line with the Gemorah but he may agree there is an issur on less than a שוה פרוטה at the end of the day that its not viewed as a monetary issur.

Another issue that comes out of this discussion is regarding the chiddush of the Netziv ((19:25) and in his commentary on Shealta 102) that one can’t allow themselves to be cheated on measurements.  That only makes sense assuming its not a monetary prohibition.