Oneg Balak

?? QUIZ TIME??http://livingwithmitzvos.com. Answers can be found on back page.

1. Bilaam’s strength was in knowing the exact moment that Hashem is angry every day. However, since this anger only lasts a moment, what could Bilaam have said in such a short time to curse the Jews?

PAR

SH

AHThe Micro and Macro of Mitzvos

Rabbi Zvi TeichmanCongregation Ohel Moshe, Baltimore, MD

Kindly Sponsored לעילוי נשמת הש"ץ שלמה בן אברהם משה ז"ל לעילוי נשמת חנה בת אלעזר ע"ה

Kindly Sponsored by theRACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST

S P O N S O R E D

Have you ever wondered why this week’s portion is named after the wicked King of Moav, Balak?

Korach, too, makes it to the ‘Hall of Fame’ of parshiyos, but we are told he was an accomplished and pious scholar destined for greatness, whose children repented and authored several chapters of Tehillim and are referred to for perpetuity as 'בני קרח', the children of Korach. Balak, however, in his venomous hatred, sought to eradicate the Jewish nation! What did he do to deserve having his name eternally recalled?

The Talmud cites the opinion of Rav who encourages us to engage in Torah and mitzvos even when our motives are not for “the sake of Heaven”. We are assured that if we stick to it, ulterior motives notwithstanding, מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, mitoch she’lo lishma, ba lishma, we will eventually reach a level of purity of intentions in our actions.(Sanhedrin 105) The source for this concept is none other than our ‘esteemed’ villain, Balak!

Balak, in his quest to capture G-d’s attention and favour, brings a total of 42 korbanos, sacrifices, on seven different altars. The Talmud goes on to tell us that the merit of these offerings, despite his nefarious intent, made Balak worthy of having Rus descend from him.

מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה!The irony lies not only in the fact that his efforts were frustrated, but in the reality

that the Davidic dynasty that would stem from Rus would be the one who would ultimately ‘rise’ to, ומחץ פאתי מואב “pierce the nobles of Moav” (Bamidbar 24:17). This a reference to either King David who will conquer the nation of Moav in his days (Rashi) or to the Melech HaMashiach who in the end of time will not spare Moav (Ramban). Some reward!

Further mystifying this theory is a passage in the Talmud (Sotah 47a) that quotes Rabbi Chanina as saying that as a consequence of Balak’s 42 sacrifices, an equivalent number of children were felled by a bear in the times of Elisha the Prophet (Melachim II, chapters 2 and 3). That episode took place when Elisha miraculously sweetened water that had gone bad, for the people of Jericho. The youths of the region, who had been capitalizing on the situation by providing water and charging for it were obviously upset when there was no longer any need for their services. They taunted Elisha, calling him קרח, kereach ‘baldy’, possibly intimating with this insult that he made ‘bald’ their source of income through his intervention. As a punishment for their chutzpah, two bears emerged from the forest and tore them apart.

The question is posed, that this seems to contradict the previous statement that implies the merit for his sacrifices was that Rus descended from him? Was he then deserving of two rewards? The Talmud answers: “his desire nevertheless was to curse them.”

Does the desire then give him a right to a double reward? Is there a reward for his wanting to curse them? What is the deeper meaning beneath this?

Every spiritual action has an inherent value and impact on us. The mere act of engaging in a mitzvah infuses the doer with a sense of kedushah, holiness. Even an act done for ulterior motives is suffused with the power to affect us. As long as one doesn’t engage in a mitzvah with the intention to get back at someone, such as in a case where

one learns Torah seeking to become proficient, solely that he may put down and ‘cut off’ others, the act has significance. Even when one studies Torah to gain honour and accolades for his scholarship, it still infuses the learner with a spirit of kedushah. One who sees Torah as a value, something that gains respect, albeit utilizing it for his own personal honour, still benefits from the aura of its effect. One who engages to spite another has no inherent appreciation for it other than its utility in quashing another. (Tosafos Nazir 23b)

Balak acts out of fear that his nation might be attacked by the newly emerging and numerous Jewish nation, 'and Moav became very frightened of the people', because it was numerous, (Bamidbar 23:3). He pines for self-preservation.

Balak is merely seeking to maintain his nation’s honour. He presents his sacrifice in some form of tribute and appeal to G-d, to seek His assistance in warding off this imagined foe. He has an ulterior motive, but there is a connection to G-d that is being addressed. This ‘micro’ deed finds its ‘macro’ effect in the evolution of Rus. The force of a small act of kedushah, no matter how misguided, finds its expression centuries later. That is the power of a mitzvah.

This minute investment reaps its full reward in the appearance of Rus. This now enters into the collective soul of the Jewish people, as Rus represents a sense of malchus, nobility, instilling an entire nation with that quality. But it is a double-edged sword.

On the other side of this micro-infusion of kedushah lies a larger dose of selfishness and baseless fear. The moment the Jewish nation exhibits that same flaw that appeared in Balak, it erupts violently. The young lads who were caught up in their own self-centeredness, that echoed the ‘desire’ of Balak for self-preservation, acted derisively to Elisha, resulting in the deaths of 42 of them, allowing the negative aspect of those sacrifices to rear its ugly head.

,The reward for a mitzvah is the mitzvah ,שכר מצוה מצוה, שכר עבירה עבירה (אבות ד ב)the reward for sin is the sin itself. (Pirkei Avos 4:2)

Reward here is used here perhaps in the vein of consequence. It is a metzius, an absolute reality. The mitzvah has a powerful inherent effect on the person just as the sin influences the individual committing it. When we do an act that has a mixed formulation it possesses the ability to find its expression both positively and negatively when we mimic the original flaw.

Balak teaches us a vital lesson. Even the wicked can gain a micro-dose of hope that can transform it completely into good as it did in the emergence of Rus. Her striving for and finding definition was the macro-expression of that miniscule seed planted by her ancestor.

Every mitzvah we do packs a mighty wallop no matter how deficient our intentions may be. Every person who has a regard for Torah has to be valued for the micro-deeds they embody.

If we become aware of the power of our connection to Hashem we will seek to purify our intentions and merit a positive macro-effect on our lives, family, community and the world.

OnegShabbos בס"ד

North West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets

For Questions on Divrei Torah or articles, to receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email [email protected]

Now in Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Bet Shemesh, Borehamwood, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Miami, New York, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, South Tottenham, Radlett, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich

04 July ’15 י"ז תמוז תשע”הפרשת בלק

פ' בלק הפטרה: מיכה ה' ו' - ו' ח'

פרקי אבות: פרק ו'הדלקת נרות

London 9:05 pm מוצש’’ק

London: 10:34 pm


2. Which famous Jewish person descended from Balak and why did he merit this?

לעלוי נשמת ר' מאיר יהודה בן ר' צבי הי'ד

כ' תמוז

S P O N S O R E D

2

PAR

SH

AHIs that your Excuse?

Rabbi Reuven LanningUnited Synagogue Chevra Kadisha

2

In Parshas Balak, when Balak was trying

for the second time to get Bilaam to curse

the Bnei Yisrael, Bilaam was not allowed

to curse them, but was told to give them

a brachah. He said to Hashem, “OK. You

don’t want me to give a curse, at least

don’t make me give a brachah.”

(A bit of paraphrasing there)

In Bamidbar 23:16, it says ‘Vayasem davar

b’fiv,’ which according to the peshat means, he

put words in his mouth. Rashi explains this

differently and comments that when Bilaam

heard that he was not allowed to curse the Bnei

Yisrael, his reason for not wanting to give a

brachah, was that he did not want to cause pain

to Balak.

This, says Rashi, is the reason that Bilaam

gave Hashem for not giving a brachah. Hashem

did not accept this excuse but vayesem davar

b’fiv, he metaphorically put a bridle in Bilaam’s

mouth and dragged him back to Balak to give a

brachah.

In passuk 18, it says “Vayomer: ‘kum Balak’”

“And he said GET UP, Balak.” Now this is not a

very respectful way to speak to a king and Rashi

comments that the reason why he said this was

that Bilaam wanted to cause Balak pain.

Hashem had told him to give a brachah, he

hadn’t said anything about causing Balak pain.

Bilaam did this of his own volition.

We see that the reason that Bilaam gave that

he did not want to give a brachah is invalid. He

himself proved that he was not worried about

causing pain to Balak, but rather he had his

own reasons for not wanting to follow Hashem’s

instructions. Either he did not want the Bnei

Yisrael blessed or he was embarrassed or maybe

he had another reason, but it certainly had

nothing to do with Bilaam’s righteousness.

Very often we come up with excuses for not

doing mitzvos, but occasionally we are shown

that our excuses are merely excuses.

We say we are too tired to learn and we need

a rest, but something else comes up and we

suddenly have the energy.

We should realise that sometimes the excuses

in our heads are not the real reason, but laziness

or other bad middos might be the real reason.

Occasionally Hashem shows us these are

mere excuses by our own actions. We must be

sure to take note.


3. How did Bilaam die and why in this way?

07860 017 641קהלה קדושה

חברתבני ישראל

SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ASK THE FEDERATION.

S P O N S O R E D

3 FE

DE

RA

TIO

N

קהלה קדושהחברת

בני ישראלBILAAM'S SWORD

Jacky WegTrustee, Federation of Synagogues

According to Midrashim, Bilaam was a gilgal (reincarnation) of Lovon or a son/grandson of him. Or indeed, according to some, Bilaam and Lovon were the same person. During Bilaam's journey to Bolok he encounters a malach (angel) holding a sword aloft. Not just any sword, this sword was hidden in the matzeivah that Yaacov and Lovon erected to signify a covenant between them and Bilaam was now breaking that covenant. “Vatilachetz al hakir” - this kir, wall, refers to that matzeivah and the malach is holding aloft the sword belonging to Lovon – in other words, it’s actually Bilaam's sword, but Bilaam ignores all these warnings hell-bent as he is to curse klal yisroel.

What is this connection with Yaakov and Lovon about?

We find that after Yaacov had successfully acquired the blessings from his father, Rivka instructs him to flee to her brother Lovon - the words she uses are “berach lecho” (“flee for yourself”). This word “lecho” appears a number of times in the Chumash, usually to imply that the instruction is optional - as we find in Parshas Lech Lecho; the words “Lech Lecho” at the Akeida; “Shelach lecho” with the meraglim (spied), “Likro lecho” with Bilaam.

It is relevant that the only other time in the Chumash where we find the precise phrase “berach lecho” is near the end of Parshas Bolok. After Bolok is so exasperated by Bilaam’s inability to curse the Bnei Yisroel he says “berach lecho” - what is the message Bolok is giving Bilaam here?

In order to understand this, we must first ask why in Parshas Toldos Rivka is seemingly giving Yaacov an option. Eisav is furious at Yaacov, ready to kill him and Rivka gives him a choice? She ought to have just instructed Yaacov to flee, period!

In the event, Yaacov did as instructed and eventually arrived at Lovon . After all his trials and tribulations and raising a family in the house of Lovon, he eventually leaves. Let us now look at Bereishis 21:20. Yaacov is described as someone fleeing, furthermore according to the plain translation of the possuk, Yaacov ‘steals’ the heart of Lovon ‘haarami’ - the ‘trickster/fraudster/swindler’. This is the first time since the beginning of Parshas Toldos that Lovon is described as such. So on face value we now apparently have a thief stealing something from a thief? Furthermore, one must ask the question - if one wants to flee from an oppressor would he really inform him of the fact? (M’eam Loez)

In fact what the Torah is telling us here is something quite profound. Yaacov fools Lovon – according to the Targum Yaacov

covered up his decision to flee. Furthermore, Yaacov did not fool Lovon by the act of fleeing, he fooled lovon the first time they met. Yaacov arrives at Lovon destitute and penniless after everything has been stolen from him by Eliphaz the son of Eisav. Lovon naturally assumes Yaacov is desperate. Yaacov actually informs Lovon that he has arrived from the yeshiva of Shem Ve'ever. Lovon embarks on a continuous campaign against Yaacov to constantly take advantage of, trick and swindle him. Finally, Yaacov flees. Lovon finds him and

Yaacov verbally remonstrates with lovon to stress how he has acted so justly with him and his possessions and points out to Lovon how badly he has been treated in return.

Lovon had a very subtle, crafty plan to continuously provoke Yaacov. Any other person after so many years of ill treatment would have hit back, but Yaacov as we know has the middo (characteristic) of כל לי Hashem has provided me with) יש everything I need). Eisav, however, has the middo of יש לי רוב, “I have plenty”, meaning I have room for plenty more as well - in a word, greed (see Parshas Vayishlach 33: 9 & 11). What Lovon was really trying to achieve is to provoke Yaacov to retaliate, and the moment he retaliates,his complete and total reliance in Hashem - כל לי will fall away and consequently Lovon will have – יש succeeded in irrevocably breaching Yaacov’s level of spirituality.

(My son Eli added the following - this may help us to understand the passage we read in the Haggadah of “Ma bikesh lovon ha'arami? Laakor as hakol” – Lavan wished to uproot this wonderful middo of Klal Yisroel, יש לי כל, and therefore the Ba’al Haggadah describes Lovon as even far more dangerous than Pharaoh.

So now let us return to our first question, the connection between Berach lecho mentioned by Rivka to Yaacov and subsequently mentioned by Bilaam. Rivka is giving Yaacov a lesson in life: she wants him to be a ‘boreiach’, one who is constantly fleeing; it is good for you and for generations to come to flee from violence, confrontation and war. Bolok is actually telling Bilaam “berach lecho” - it would be good for you to flee. You did not carry out the task that I requested, you blessed Klal Yisroel instead of cursing them. Now learn a lesson and take on their middo of being a ‘boreiach’.

In Parshas Matos we find Klal Yisroel wage war against Midyan and there Bilaam finally meets his end. But the possuk separates his death from the death of the five kings of Midyan by saying “ve'es Bilaam ben Beor horku bechorev - with that sword that the malach had held aloft.

The lesson is clear: Klal Yisroel survives by its reliance on Hashem - war, battles and fighting are a last resort and only to be used as a form of defence. Our battles are spiritual, to be conducted in the Beis Hamedrash by battling the yetzer hara, through more attendance, more tefillah, more shiurim and more mitzvos.

As a footnote - take the word berach/flee, spell it backwards and you have cherev – sword, referring to battle. In other words, Klal Yisroel will fight - but only as a last resort.


4. Which passuk, verse, in Parshas Balak, do we say everyday in davening?

לעילוי נשמתר' אליהו בן ר' אברהם הלוי ז"ל

ר' חיים יוסף בן ר' יהודה ליב ז"ל

מרת צפורה בת יעקב ע"הSponsored by their children

AVI & ALISON

S P O N S O R E D

4

HIS

TO

RYPolish Jewry [part 2]

Dr Charles LandauJewish historian and Dentist. He has lectured and given shiurim around Britain, America, German, Poland and Italy. He is a Jewish Tour leader, having led groups to Germany, including Berlin, Italy and Poland

Golden Age of Polish JewryThe period of 1580-1648 became known as The Golden Age of

the Jews of Poland. This was a remarkable change considering that Polish Jewry had been seen as an ignorant backwater to the more influential and glorious Rabbinic world of the German lands and Western Europe. That was a world graced by giants such as Rabbeinu Gershon, Maharam, Rashba, Rosh, Ritva, Maharik, Maharil and many others.

Yet from the end of the fifteenth to the mid seventeenth century Polish Rabbinic leadership and scholarship bestrode the Jewish world like a colossus. Not however, without internal disputes and disagreement, “for the sake of heaven”

Poland became the epicentre of Talmudic learning, study and Codification. Torah study was the lifeblood of Jewish youth and that Jewish world.

“Each community maintained young men and provided for them a weekly allowance of money that they might study with the head of the Yeshiva…under his guidance…would orally discuss the Gemara, Rashi and the Tosafot…There was scarcely a house in all the kingdom of Poland where its members did not occupy themselves with the study of Torah”

Poland’s first Yeshiva was founded by Rabbi Yaacov Pollack (1470-1541) in Cracow. He is said to have introduced the method of Talmudic learning known as ‘pilpul’, a method of hair-splitting dissection of Talmudic text, accompanied by complex questions and answers in order to “sharpen the intellect”. But that way of learning was considered, by many, to be a waste of effort and time leading to arrogance and haughtiness. Torah scholars such as the Maharal, Levush, Shelo, Maharsho and others opposed Pilpul. Despite disagreements Rabbi Pollack attracted many pupils and brought about a resurgence of Torah learning. Believing that all scholars and Rabbis should use their own investigations and studies of Talmud to come to Halachic decisions, he left no writings.

His pupil was Rabbi Shalom Shachna of Lublin, who continued with the controversial pilpul method and as with his teacher never wrote a ‘psak halacha’. His grave can be visited in Lublin today.

Rabbi Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, (1510-1574)was one of the great poskim of his time. His major work was Yam Shel Shlomo, a halachic work covering sixteen tractates of the Talmud. He too stressed the Talmud as the final arbiter on all halachic decisions. Like many Rabbis of his time he was criticised for his

kabbalistic leanings and was critical of others such as the Rema for his study of Philosophy. He left a large number of ‘She’elot and Teshuvot’ . Some would say that nearly all of the great Rabbis of the ‘Golden Age’ were disciples of the Maharshal.

Arguably the greatest Rabbinic figure of that period, and son in law of R. Shalom Shachna, was Rabbi Moses Isserlis(Rema). His influence was immense and his commentary affects our lives to this very day.

The Rema (1520-1572) lived, died and is buried in Cracow and saw Poland as the “chosen land”

“In this country there is no fierce hatred of us as in Germany. May it continue until the advent of the Moshiach”

“You will be better off in this country…you have here peace of mind”

Despite opposition, by those who feared that Talmud would not be learnt properly, the Jewish world moved toward the advent of recognised and universal ‘Codification of Halacha’. In fear of laxity in observance of halacha alongside a lack in ability of people to be able to search the Talmud for answers to halachic problems, new codification came ever closer. Following on to earlier codes of the Rambam, Rif and Rosh and others the Rabbi Yosef Caro produced and had printed his Bet Yosef and then shulchan Arukh. Its’ emphasis was for the Sephardi world. His contemporary the Rema, working on his own code, ceased his extensive halachic code and committed himself to writing an Ashkenaz ‘table cloth’ , The Mapah to the Sephard Shulchan Arukh. The Rema records hundreds of variants often beginning:

“This is our custom” “The custom of these lands is”

He became responsible for “a large degree of unity in halachic matters among all Jews for the first time since the Talmud and Gaonim”

There is also a large volume of his Teshuvot dealing with issues of his time. His saintliness was renowned and to World War Two his grave was regularly visited on his Lag Ba’Omer Yarzheit by Jew and non-Jew alike. He is buried today, with much of his family, by the Rema shul in Cracow.

The precariousness and insecurity of Jewish life witnessed the end of The Golden Age as the Ukrainian Cossacks revolted against their Polish overlords.

Jewish life would never be the same again

The ‘Age’ may have died but its legacy would live on for evermore


5. When Balak sends messengers to fetch Bilaam he gives them many details: his father’s name, city’s name and its location. Why the need for all this?

לעילוי נשמתר' חיים משה בן ר' אלימלך ז"למרת מלכה גיטל בת חיים ע"ה

Sponsored byProud Parents & Grandparents

S P O N S O R E D

לעילוי נשמתר' חיים משה בן ר' אלימלך ז"למרת מלכה גיטל בת חיים ע"ה

Sponsored byProud Parents & Grandparents

S P O N S O R E D

5

The Weekly Halachic ConversationRabbi Avi WiesenfeldRosh Kollel, Yerushalayim and Rav at Kav Halacha Beis Horaah H

ALA

CH

A

Follow my VIDEO SHIURIM

torahanytime.com

Food…food…and more food….But What About the Brachah? [part 2]

TYPE 2 - “ENHANCERS”

Until now we have dealt with cases in which both foods are considered important and one wants to eat both, but because they are mixed together only one brachah is made. Which brachah to recite is determined by which one is mezonos or by which one is the majority ingredient.

There is, however, a very different type of case where one really wants only one of the two foods, and the other food is there merely to help or improve the main one. The latter food is automatically the secondary one, and a brachah is required only on the primary one.

A food can become טפל tofel in several ways:

a. It is added to flavour the other food or to make it better to eat in some way.1

b. It is there to add colour, to decorate, or to bind the main food together.2

c. It makes the main food edible, such as when the main food is too strong or bitter.3

d. It serves to help one hold the main food, preventing the hands from getting soiled.4

This is the big kiddush debate. Have you ever watched people eating at a Kiddush? They want crackers and herring, but no-one actually knows what brachah they should make on it. Some make a mezonos, others just a shehakol. If you will ask them why they made the brachah they did, they may not be able to explain it to you, simply choosing to shrug their shoulders and walk away. It reminds me of something I always tell my boys in yeshivah, watch someone say a brachah acharonah after eating… didn’t take very long, did it? Now ask the same person to say his brachah acharonah out loud to exempt all those present, and all of a sudden, the same person is asking for a bentcher to use to say the words nice and slowly! Why? Because people are listening, I need to get it right! I think we need to start thinking a little bit more before we simply pop some food into our mouths. How can we thank Hashem in the proper manner – by reciting the correct brachah! Now let’s learn…

Â Although we learned earlier that mezonos is not considered a secondary food due to its importance, this is true only when it is being eaten for its own taste. If, however, the mezonos is being eaten only to help the main food, it is considered a secondary food and does not require its own brachah.5 This applies, for example, when the mezonos is added to decorate the other food – e.g., biscuit crumbs on a fruit salad or biscuit crumbs sprinkled over ice-cream, or to bind/thicken the other food (not for its flavour) – e.g., flour placed in meatballs to hold them together, or flour used to thicken a soup, or even to give the other food a crunch – e.g., pieces of biscuit in ice-cream to give it a crunch.

A. IT IS ADDED TO FLAVOUR THE OTHER FOOD OR TO MAKE IT BETTER TO EAT IN SOME WAY:

If one of the two foods is being eaten to add taste to the other, it is considered the secondary one and is exempted by the brachah made on the primary food.

• Jam/peanut butter spread on a cracker/rice cake – since the spread is making the cracker/rice cake tastier, a brachah is required only on the cracker/rice cake.

• Almonds in a bar of chocolate – since the almonds are to add a crunch or taste to the chocolate, a brachah is required only on the chocolate.

1 גמ' ברכות לו, וכ"ה בשו"ע סי' רב סעי' ד.2 גמ' ברכות לט. וכ"כ בשו"ע סי' רד סעי' יב. ועי' רמב"ם הל' ברכות פ"ג ה"ו.

3 כמש"כ הגמ' ברכות מד. ותוס' שם ד"ה באוכלי.4 פשוט הוא, והוי כמו כף בלבד. עי' מ"ב סי' ריב ס"ק יג.

5 עי' מ"ב סי' קסח ס"ק סב ושעה"צ סי' ריב ס"ק ד.

• Pieces of fruit in yogurt – since the fruit is to add sweetness/taste to the yogurt, a brachah is required only on the yogurt.

• Icing on a cake – the icing improves the taste of the cake, and thus only a mezonos is required.

B. IT IS THERE TO ADD COLOUR, TO DECORATE, OR TO BIND THE MAIN FOOD TOGETHER:

If one of the foods is added merely to add colour, decorate, or help bind the other food together, it is considered the secondary one and is included in the brachah made on the primary food.

• A piece of carrot placed on top of a slice of gefilta fish for decoration requires no brachah of its own when one eats it together with the fish, even if one likes carrots.

• A cherry on top of a fruit salad (with mainly bananas and pineapple, which are ha’adamah) does not require a brachah of its own.

• Flour/breadcrumbs put into meatballs/soup only to bind it together or thicken the texture (and not for the taste) does not require a mezonos or hamotzi.

• A few croutons scattered over a vegetable salad to decorate it will not require a mezonos, since they are put there to add colour to the salad [unless a significant amount are put in for their own taste].

C. IT MAKES THE MAIN FOOD EDIBLE, SUCH AS WHEN THE MAIN FOOD IS TOO STRONG OR BITTER:

When one wants to eat a food that has a strong, bitter, or salty taste, and he eats something to weaken the strong taste of the main food, no brachah is required, since he eats it only to make the main food edible.

• If one dips bread into whisky because the whisky is too strong for him, no brachah is required on the bread (unless he also wants to eat the bread).6

• If one puts herring on a cracker because the herring is too sharp or salty for him, no brachah is required on the cracker (unless he also wants to eat the cracker).

D. IT SERVES TO HELP ONE HOLD THE MAIN FOOD, PREVENTING THE HANDS FROM GETTING SOILED:

When one eats the food merely to prevent the other food from making his hands dirty, it is automatically considered the secondary food and requires no brachah.

• If one is eating a cracker to hold herring (e.g., there are no forks around), but he really wants only the herring, no brachah is recited on the cracker.

• If a thin layer of cake is used to hold up a cheese cake or an ice-cream cake, no brachah is recited on the cake as its purpose is only to hold up the primary food.

The purpose of brachos is to remind us who our Benefactor is. The other purpose of brachos is to praise Hashem. The Midrash says, “G-d created the world so that we should praise Him and bless Him.” Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Tshuva 3:143) writes: “With these effortless brachos that we say with our mouths, we are earning the greatest merits, because we are upholding one of the main purposes of creation.”

Ok, now that we have all the rules, next week we will go into some mouth-watering dishes, and examine their correct brachah….

6 וע"ע בערוה"ש ס"ה ובשולחן הטוהר ס"ט שבזמננו אין מי שאוכל לחם למיתוק האכילה ללא שיכוין ליהנות גם מהפת.


6. Chazal tell us how Bilaam advised Balak to use the daughters of Moav to seduce the Jewish men. At the end of the parshah Hashem commands Moshe to kill the leaders of the sinners specifically in the light of day, “neged hashemesh”. Why?

לעילוי נשמתר' קלמן בן משה ז"ל

Kalman Weissbraun

S P O N S O R E DS P O N S O R E D

6

PAR

SH

AHHow Goodly are your Tents

R' Simon RinkoffJFS

‘How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel’ (Bamidbar 24:5)

Familiar words, yet their source, coming from a character so antithetical to the Jewish people is startling.

This week’s Torah portion gives much space to two of Israel’s most vociferous enemies. A king, Balak, intent on destroying an approaching adversary - an army who had laid waste to Sichon and Og and a potent, yet deeply flawed, prophet, Bilaam, chosen by the king to help eradicate this force, by striking at their spiritual root and cursing this holy nation, the Bnei Yisrael. From the outset, the plan was doomed to failure. Why was this so?

To arrive at an answer, one has to delve deeper into the character of Bilaam. ‘There was nothing in the world that the Holy One, Blessed is He, did not reveal to Bilaam, who surpassed Moshe in wisdom,’ (Tanna D’vei Eliyahu Rabbah 28). There are sources that tell us that Bilaam was greater than Moshe in prophetic ability. We are told that the nations of the world also needed their own prophet, so they could excuse their shortcomings by saying that they did not have a powerful prophet like Moshe. However, whereas Moshe’s very existence was to embrace the spiritual, Bilaam lived for physicality. Bilaam was obsessed with material wealth. Rashi says he was a money changer (his place of birth was Pethor which means money changing table in Aramaic (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:77)). Balak knew that Bilaam would not be able to refuse a financial opportunity and a chance to earn admiration for his ability to curse the Jewish people and so enlisted him to carry out his plan. As Balak feared a military defeat, he wished for Bilaam to perceive a spiritual weakness in the Jewish nation which would in turn bring about their downfall. Balak made a grave misjudgement.

Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, zt”l, highlights two forces at work in the human psyche – ta’aveh, where a person has a desire for indulging in the physical and ga’aveh,

craving pride and honour. Bilaam had both these traits in a big way. For one, he craved monetary reward to satisfy his ta’aveh for material goods and also to pander to his ga’aveh – to have money for the sake of power. Bilaam’s obsession with the physical is further highlighted through the relationship he had with his donkey, the mode of transport he uses to go and lay his venomous curses on the Bnei Yisrael. The Maharal makes a comparison between Bilaam’s animal and Avraham’s donkey. The root of the words for donkey and materials is the same – חמר. However, the ways in which the two characters interact with חמר are very different. Bilaam conversed with his donkey, he was involved with it intimately and this hints to his absolute immersion in physicality. Avraham, however, rode above this symbol of physicality and was not controlled by it – he used it a means to an end to get to the site of the Akeidah.

When Bilaam finally reached his destination to carry out Balak’s evil plans to lay a curse on the Jewish people, he opened his mouth and only blessings came forth, much to the chagrin of Balak. To add insult to injury, Bilaam then sets up an altar to sacrifice to Hashem and enlist His help! Again, only the most beautiful phrases about the Bnei Yisrael emerge. When Bilaam stood upon the hillside, he could only say what he saw - rows of tents belonging to the Jewish people, the entrances of which were all facing away from each other - the paradigm of modesty and reserve. Bilaam simply could not do anything but bless them!

‘How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel,’ the phrase that one should say every morning on entering the sanctity of the Beis HaKnesses. It is strange to think that such words could emanate from a rasha such as Bilaam but it is testament to the fact that the Jewish people are expected to be a shining example of tznius, a nation who takes the physicality so ruthlessly pursued by Bilaam for his own self-aggrandisement and elevates it.


7. What is the connection between the parshah and the haftorah?

S P O N S O R E D

Giving a voice to victims of abuseGiving a voice to victims of abuse

LISTENING SUPPORT ADVICEREFERRAL

HELPLINE 020 3670 1818

www.shemakolihelpline.orgEndorsed by leading UK Rabbonim

HELPLINE HOURSSunday 6.00-8.30pmMonday 3.00-5.30pm

Tuesday 11.00am-1.30pmThursday 11.00am-1.30pm

7

HA

LAC

HA

D

RIV

ING

A Practical Halachic Guide to Safe Driving [Part 6 of 6 Part Series]

Rabbi Matisyohu Chaim LawrenceRosh Hachaburah, Kollel Kesser Yisroel / Golders Green Beis Din

G. SAFETY OF DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS

1. Seat-belts protect drivers and passengers from serious injury in the event of a collision ר"ל.

2. A person wearing a selt-belt is also far less likely to be thrown out of the vehicle in the event of a collision ר"ל and is therefore far less likely to suffer injury, or to injure other passengers.

3. The law in England (and many other countries) is that a driver and all passengers must wear seat-belts at all times.

4. Therefore, all drivers and passengers are halachically obligated to wear seat-belts at all times whilst the vehicle is in motion.1 Consequently, it is not permitted to carry more passengers that the vehicle is equiped to carry since inevitably, one or more passengers will not be safely strapped in.

5. Children and babies should be suitably strapped-in and/or harnessed even during short journeys.

6. Women should not be concerned that wearing a seat-belt compromises hilchos tznius in any way.2

H. DAMAGE CAUSED BY DRIVERS TO OTHER CARS OR PROPERTY

7. In general, a driver is responsible to pay for damage which his car causes to another car or property.3

8. (Whether or not a payment made by an insurance company absolves a driver of his responsibility to pay damages is beyond the scope of this 4.קונטרס)

9. A driver who stops his car suddenly, against traffic regulations, thereby causing a car which is travelling behind him to crash (as the driver of the second car was unable to stop in time) is halachically responsible for the damage caused.5

10. (Although insurance companies generally attribute liability to the driver of the rear vehicle, this may not affect the halachic liability of the driver in front if he was the cause of the accident. This issue is beyond the scope of this קונטרס.)

ELECTRIC SCOOTERS

11. Electric scooters have recently become popular. Some of these scooters can travel at relatively high speeds and can potentially cause danger to those that ride them and to other road users. When parking these scooters, especially in entrance areas to buildings, care should be taken not to cause an obstruction. There have recently been incidents when people have been injured when falling over parked scooters.

12. Many of the safety measures detailed in this קונטרס are relevant to those who ride scooters and should be applied accordingly.

PARKING

Private Areas

13. It is prohibited to park in a private area against the will of the owner of that area.6

1 ע' שו"ת שבט הקהתי ח"ה סי' רמ"א וז"ל ...כיון דקבעו מומחים דע"י חגורת הבטחון שבעים אחוז ניצולו מהריגה ופצעים ורק שלשים אחוז נהרגין ונפצעים ר"ל ע"י החגורה, א"כ ע"פ דין תורה הולכין אחר הרוב וחייבין

לחגור חגורה וכו' עכ"ל.וכ"פ בשו"ת רבבות אפרים ח"ח סי' קכח.2 שמעתי שיש נשים שחוששות שלבישת חגורת ביטחון הוא חסרון בצניעות, שגורם להבלטת אברי הגוף,

ולאחרונה היה משא ומתן גדול בענין זה באחד מהירחונים המיועדים לנשים. אבל לכאורה טענה זו נראה מוזר מאד ויכולות ללבוש החגורת-בטחון באופן שאינו גורם שום חסרון בצניעות ואכמ"ל.

3 ע' פתחי חושן פרק ג הערה ו שכ' דיש לו דין אדם המזיק כיון דהמכונית נוסעת מכחו עכ"ד. והכלל הוא דאדם מועד לעולם )ב"ק פרק א משנה ד ושו"ע חו"מ סי' שע"ח(, אבל במקרים מסויימים יהיה פטור דאונס גמור )ע'

שם( או גרמא )ע"ש סי' שפו( וכל מקרה צריך שאלת חכם ולפעמים דין תורה בין הצדדים בבית דין. 4 ע' באריכות בפתחי חושן, פקדון, פרק ח הערה נה

5 פתחי חושן, נזיקין, פרק א הערה עט. וע"ע שם בהערה טו בענין החיובים של נזק כשע"י המכונית ניתז אבן או מים משלולית, ואכמ"ל.

6 כ"פ מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב זצ”ל )תשובתו מובא בספר ממון ישראל, עמוד ג אות ה(, וז"ל: המשתמש בקרקע שלא ברשות בעלים, כמו מי שחונה במקום חניה פרטי כנגד דעת בעה"ב, מיקרי גזלן. ולכן מי שחונה בכביש או בחצר פרטי בלי רשות בעלים, כל שהבעלים מקפידים על חנייתו, ועובר על איסור גזילה. עכ"ל ע"ש. וכן יוצא מתשובת

הגרז"נ גולדברג שליט"א )שם עמוד י תשובה ד( שפסק ע"פ הרשב"ם ב"ב נז ב ד"ה לקולא, שהעומד בחצר

14. A person who parks in a private area, against the will of the owner of that area, transgresses the prohibition of gezeilah – stealing.7

Public Areas

15. It is prohibited to park a vehicle on the pavement (sidewalk), since this will cause pedestrians to endanger themselves by having to walk in the road.8

16. It is prohibited to park a vehicle in a manner which obstructs other drivers’ vision since this is likely to cause an accident.9

17. It is prohibited to park a car in violation of traffic regulations in that area.10

18. It is therefore prohibited to park on red lines, yellow lines (unless legally permitted during certain hours), double-yellow lines and white lines (unless specific permission is given).

Parking Bays

19. When parking in a parking bay one should pay the statutory parking fee.11

20. A person should avoid any possibility of causing a chillul Hashem when parking. 12

Disabled Persons Permits

21. It is prohibited to apply for a ‘disabled parking permit’ (which entitles disabled drivers or their carers to park in special bays and other locations) by supplying false information about one’s medical or physical state. This is considered geneivas da’as which is a category of gezel.13

22. Using a ‘disabled person’s parking permit’ when one does not qualify for receiving such a permit is considered geneivas da’as.

23. Using a ‘disabled person’s parking permit’ when one does not qualify for receiving such a permit is also likely to cause distress, difficulty or inconvenience for those who do qualify for such a permit, since occupying a space reserved for a disabled person prevents that person from parking in that place.14

24. Chazal sharply criticise people who pretend to be disabled in order to obtain (financial) gain.15

חבירו שלא מדעתו, מיקרי שואל שלא מדעת שהוא גזלן.7 שם

8 שו"ת מנח"י ח"ח סי' קמח מטעם בור ברשות הרבים. וכ"פ במשפטי התורה סי' ל סע' ד והערה 5 מטעם גוזל ומזיק הרבים, עפ"י רמ"א או"ח סי' תרלז סע' ב האוסר לבנות סוכה ברה"ר נגד דעת השלטונות. וכ"פ בשו"ת

מים ההלכה )חלק ב סי' צב( ע"פ הרמב"ם פי"א מהל' רוצח ה"ה ע"ש. וכ"פ בספר מנחת צבי )ח"א סי' ט( ובספר משפט צדק )חלק ב עמוד 340( בשם הגרי"י פישר זצ"ל, ובספר מאיר נתיבים )עמוד 72( בשם הגר"ע יוסף זצ”ל.

וע' ספר "עלינו לשבח" ח"ה עמוד קמג-ד מעשה נורא בענין זה. 9 פשוט, ומטעם בור ברשות הרבים, כמבואר בהערה הקודמת.

10 כ"פ מרן הגריש"א )הובא בספר ממון ישראל שם( וז"ל: אסור להעמיד רכב ברחוב כנגד תקנות וחקות המלכות, וחיוב זה עדיף מדינא דמלכותא, ע"ש. וכ"פ בשו"ת משנה הלכות ח"ד סי' רכח וז"ל: ולא אחכד מעטי כי כבר היה

לי הרהורי דברים באנשים שיש להם מכונית וכו' ומעמידים המכונית ברחוב במקום שאסור מדינא לעמוד שם, לבד מה שעוברים בזה על דינא דמלכותא דינא, יש בזה עוד איסור של גזל הרבים כיון דהרחוב שייך לכל העולם

והוא גוזל מהם, ופלא שהעולם לא נזהרים בזה כי קשה גזל הרבים וכו' לפעמים הוא שמתנגדים על שמניחים המכוניות לפני בתיהם ומצערים את בעלי הבתים וכו' וצ"ע מאד אמאי סמכו אפי' שומרי התורה שמניחין

המכוניות נגד החוק עכ"ל. 11 ע' שו"ת משנה הלכות ח"ד סי' רכח

12 משום שהרבה פעמים יש חשש חילול ה' אם הנהג אינו משלם, וחוזר בשעה שכבר הגיע השוטר והוא עסוק ברשימת פרטי מכוניתו, ונותן לו קנס, והנהג המלובש כיהודי עומד מצדו ומקבל הקנס לעין כל וע"י זה גורם

חילול ה', וכ"ש כשנכנס לויכוחים עם השוטר. 13 ע' שו"ע חו"מ סי' רכח סע' ו, פתחי חושן, גניבה ואבידה, פרק טו סע' ז, ספר תתן אמת ליעקב וספר מדבר שקר

תרחק.14 ובזה עובר על מצות "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" שהוא יסוד לכל התורה כולה. וע' בספר הליכות בין אדם לחבירו

ובפרט במבוא ובפרק א.15 ע' משנה פאה פרק ח' משנה ט' וז"ל וכל מי שאינו לא חגר ולא סומא ולא פיסח, ועושה עצמו כאחד מהם,

אינו מת מן הזקנה עד שיהיה כאחד מהם, שנאמר )דברים טז כ( "צדק צדק תרדף". וע"ש בתוס' חדשים וז"ל עני עושה רמאות כדי שיתנו לו יותר צדקה, ועל זה מביא שפיר פסוק "צדק צדק וכו'" וה"פ צדק, דהיינו צדקה,

צדק תרדוף, ולא ברמאות עכ"ל. וע"ש בתפא"י וז"ל ...ועושה את עצמו כך מדהוא עני שירחמו עליו, ואפ"ה נענש מדממעיט בכבוד שמים, כאילו ברא בעל מום יותר בעולם, והרי הרואה בריות יפות צריך ליתן שבח לשמו ית' וזה כפוי טובה עכ"ל. וכ"כ בהלכתא גבירתא וז"ל מפני שמיקל בכבוד ה' עכ"ל. וע"ש בתוס' אנשי שם בשם ב"י טעם

למה דוקא עונש הנזכר במשנה שייך לו.

QUI

Z TI

ME

ANSW

ERS IDEAS FOR ANSWERS

1 Either he would have said the one word "kaleim", destroy them. Or, as long as he started cursing in that moment of anger, he could continue afterwards and his words would have an effect. (Tosfas Brochos 7a)

2 Rus descended from Balak in the merit of his bringing 42 korbonos, sacrifices, with the right intentions. He was not looking to annihilate the Jews for who they were, but rather was acting in self defense because he felt they were threatening his country. (Gemara Sotah 47a)

3 Bilaam died when magically flying in the air together with the other kings of Midyon. Pinchos dressed with the tzitz chased them. When they saw the inscription of Hashem's Name on the tzitz the magic stopped and they fell onto swords which the Jews below were holding up. (Matos, 31:8) This was because hakol kol Yaakov, the power of voice belongs to the Jews, vehayodayim yedai Esav (Toldos, 27:22), while the power of the hand and sword belongs to the other nations. Since Bilaam used the power of the Jews, the power of the mouth, to curse them, he was punished and died with the power of the sword. (Rashi, Balak, 22:23)

4 The passuk of "Ma tovu ohalecha Yaakov" (24:5) – "How goodly are your tents, O Yakov."

5 The Ohr HaChayim (22:5) answers that this demonstrates Balak’s desperation to destroy the Jewish people without delay. To remove all doubt regarding who was the correct Bilaam, he gave all these specifications.

6 The Sforno (25:4) explains that Hashem wanted the people to see the killing and not protest. This would act as an atonement for their remaining quiet and not protesting when seeing them sin.

7 In the haftorah it mentions the passuk (Micha, 6:5) – "My people, hear now what Balak, King of Moav, schemed and what Bilaam son of Beor answered him, [and all the events] from Shittim to Gilgal – in order to recognize the righteous acts of Hashem." The Gemora Brochos 6a brings that "the righteous acts of Hashem" refers to Him not getting angry during the days that Bilaam tried cursing the Jews, as had He done so, the results would have, G-d forbid, been catastrophic. The Chida, mentions this as one of ten daily remembrances to be said after shacharis, as is done by the Sefardim.

8

MiYemini MichoelRabbi Michoel JablinowitzRosh Yeshiva Ateret Yerushalayim

PIR

KE

I A

VO

S

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.

Please Dispose Of This Sheet Appropriately As It Contains Words Of Torah

פרק ו ברייתא באמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב

ומכרזת ואומרת אוי להם לבריות מעלבונה של תורה וכו'

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches in Avos that every day there is a Bas Kol which goes out from Har Sinai and declares,

“Woe to the people for the disgrace caused to the Torah by those who don't study Torah.” What is the basis of this statement that thousands of years after Kabalas HaTorah there is still a Bas Kol going out from Har Sinai?

The Torah says in parshas Va'Eschanan (Devarim 5:19), Kol gadol v'lo yasaf. The voice heard at Har Sinai is an ongoing, eternal voice. The Sfas Emes teaches that this is the Bas Kol referred to by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The sound of the Aseres HaDibros continues today and is intended exclusively for Bnei Yisrael, just as Kabbalas HaTorah was uniquely experienced by Am Yisrael. We must make ourselves attuned to this voice in order to hear it. This idea is expressed in the daily brachah we make over learning Torah, Nosein HaTorah. The verb used is present tense, describing Hashem as continually giving us the Torah.

This idea of the Sfas Emes is also taught by Chazal in a well-known statement quoted by Rashi on the Chumash. The Torah says in the second parshah of Kriyas Shema in parshas Eikev (Devarim 11: 13), “V'hayah im shamo'a tishme'u el mitzvosai asher anochi metzave eschem hayom - And it shall come to pass if you will hearken diligently to my commandements which I command you this day.” Rashi comments on the word hayom, “sheyihyu chadashim aleichem k'ilu shematem bo bayom. They should be new to you as if you heard them on that very day.” The words of the Torah should be fresh and exciting to us as if we receive them anew each and every day.

The words of Rashi state, as if you heard them that very day. The emphasis is on hearing, on developing the sensitivity to hear

the Bas Kol which goes out every single day, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches. This sensitivity of hearing was also established by Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai. In parshas Mishpatim, when Bnei Yisrael received the Torah, they said, Na'aseh V'Nishma. They could have just said Na’aseh, we will fulfill the mitzvos of the Torah, as is brought previously in parshas Yisro (Shemos 19:8), Kol asher diber Hashem na’aseh.

The addition of the word nishma, explains the Sfas Emes, adds a new dimension to the mitzvos. It represents doing the mitzvos with a particular enthusiasm, with a chassidus of lifnim mishuras hadin, of going beyond the letter of the law. Saying we will perform the mitzvos is sufficient. But when Bnei Yisrael say our ears will be poised and ready to hear, ready to accept upon ourselves the will of our Creator, they are showing a higher level of preparedness. They are exhibiting a willingness to understand the nuances of Avodas Hashem and not just performing the actual mitzvos themselves.

This is the same level of preparedness necessary to hear the sound coming every day from Har Chorev, of fulfilling the words of Chazal and making the mitzvos fresh and new as if we heard them that very day. The Chasid Ya'avetz adds that since Chazal teach that the neshamos of all future generations stood at Har Sinai as well, the acceptance of Na'aseh V'Nishma applies to the future generations as well. This, then, is the challenge imposed uniquely on all of Am Yisrael for all generations. And the Chasid Ya'avetz adds the "elbonah shel Torah", the disgrace of the Torah, is not a disgrace to the Torah itself. The kavod of Torah cannot be taken away, it remains constantly where it is. The disgrace would be, chas v'shalom, to us, to those who ignore the sound and the call of the Torah. We must maintain the obligation of our forefathers accepted at Ma'amad Har Sinai and hear the ongoing sound of the Dibros. And when we do, we will be able to engage ourselves in Torah with an excitement and freshness, for we will have heard the sound of the Bas Kol that very day itself.

Documents

Oneg Balak