Oneg Chukas

?? QUIZ TIME??Answers can be found on back page.

1. Parah Adumah is a chok. What does a “chok” mean?

HA

LAC

HA

HKiddush in ShulRabbi Daniel RoselaarRav of Kehillat Alei Tzion

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

S P O N S O R E D

בברכת מזל טוב להבה''ח יחיאל שמואל נ"י

לרגל שמחת הנשואין בשעטו''מ

A familiar feature of the Friday evening service in many shuls is the recital of Kiddush by the chazzan, though in many other shuls this is absent. The purpose of this article is to consider the background to this custom, as well as some of the associated halachos.

The practice of reciting Kiddush in shul is very ancient and can be traced back to Talmudic times. The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim (100b) clearly assumes that this was a common occurrence and asks whether the person who makes Kiddush in shul must repeat it again when he arrives home. In the course of a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding this question the Gemara explains that Kiddush was made in shul for the benefit of travellers who ate and slept on the synagogue premises.

Nowadays it is rare that travellers are provided with food and lodging in the shul building itself, and even if they are, they would usually be provided with wine for Kiddush at the dinner table. Consequently, the recital of Kiddush by the chazzan would seem to be redundant, and would even constitute a brachah in vain. This is the view of the Rosh in his commentary to this passage (10:5) and he opines that in such circumstances Kiddush should not be recited. However, he also cites the view of Rabbenu Yonah who disagrees on the grounds that this Kiddush is also effective for people who don’t know how to make Kiddush properly at home and that they can discharge their obligations by listening to the chazzan in shul. Rabbenu Yonah was of the opinion that even though there is a requirement that Kiddush should be said bemakom seudah, in instances whether this is not possible that requirement can be waived.

The machlokes between the Rosh and Rabbenu Yonah was repeated by the sages of subsequent generations as well. The Tur (OH 269) records the custom to say Kiddush in shul, but comments that were he

able to do so, he would have discontinued the practice – a telling insight into both the practical authority of even the most prominent of poskim and the power of minhag – and that Rav Hai Gaon also maintained that Kiddush should not be recited in the absence of travellers. On the other hand, the Ran (in his comments to the Rif 20a) endorsed the custom, on the grounds that this Kiddush was never introduced into the service on an as-needs basis, but that it was a formal addition to the service which is to be retained even if the original reasons are no longer relevant. Rabbi David Abudraham in his commentary to the Siddur also endorsed the custom, on the grounds that it constitutes a public proclamation of Hashem’s holiness in the same way that Chanukah lights are lit in shul with brachos even though they do not fulfil any particular mitzvah requirement.

The Shulchan Aruch (OH 269:1) writes that the custom is to recite Kiddush even if there are no travellers, but that it is better not to do so and that in Eretz Yisrael it is not recited. However the Rama notes that the chazzan should stand when he recites Kiddush in shul (rather than sitting as he would do at home), so this clearly indicates that he endorsed, or at least maintained, the practice of reciting Kiddush.

The Shulchan Aruch also writes that if Kiddush is recited, the wine should be given to a child to drink. An adult would not be allowed to drink the wine since one is not permitted to drink anything before reciting Kiddush and since this is not a valid Kiddush in terms of the mitzvah the restriction against drinking is still in force. The Magen Avraham discusses why this does not apply also to a child and makes several suggestions including i) though it is generally prohibited to feed forbidden foods to a child, in this case the food itself is not forbidden; ii) Chazal never imposed any restrictions on children if they could be injurious to their health and since waiting a long time before eating can sometimes be unhealthy, the whole prohibition against eating before Kiddush does not apply to children. In the event that no child is present to drink the wine the chazzan should drink it, but he should drink a full revi’is (in addition to the mouthful required for Kiddush) in order to fulfil the requirement of making Kiddush as part of a seudah.

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

27 June ‘15 י' תמוז תשע”הפרשת חקת

פ' חקת הפטרה: שפטים י"א א' - ל"ג

פרקי אבות: פרק ה'הדלקת נרות

London 9:07 pm מוצש’’ק

London: 10:38 pm


2. When else in the year do we read from Parshas Chukas?

לעלוי נשמתשרה בת ר' בערל ע"ה

S P O N S O R E D

2

HIS

TO

RYPolish Jewry

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, Italy, Poland and Berlin2

Dos Lied funem Oysgehargen Yidishn Folk:(The song of the murdered Jewish People)

‘Woe is unto me,Nobody is left

There was a people and it is no moreThere was a people and it is…Gone.

Wiped out.’

ITZHAK KATZENELSON.

Born Karelitz, lived in Lodz, incarcerated in the Warsaw Ghetto and murdered Birkenau 1944

Jews were first invited into Poland around the tenth century. They came through voluntary migration at the invitation of princes and kings who wanted Jews to help Polish commerce in their fledgling country. Fleeing the Black Death, blood libels, Crusades and expulsions, Jews moved from Germany and South West Europe and established what would become the centre of the Ashkenazi world, indeed, the greatest Jewish community on earth. By 1500, there were 10,000 Jews in about 85 towns with early settlements in what were to become major centres of Jewish life - Warsaw and Kazimierz. Jews excelled as middlemen in finance, salt mines and agriculture. Jews established themselves in foreign trade, food, leather and clothing.

However, Jews became an oppressed and suffering minority. Many Poles and the Polish Church were disturbed by the Jews’ success, and together with their success and prominence came classic medieval anti-Jewish sentiments and laws, often imported from neighbouring German lands. Jews were separated from Christians in separate living areas, socialising was discouraged and Jews were to be readily identified by the wearing of the distinctive Jew badge. The Church’s attitude and the maintaining of separation and distinctiveness defined the situation of Jews in Europe and especially Poland for 1000 years. There was always a dangerous balance for the Jews to navigate between the protection of princes and kings and the hatred and hostility of the Church, artisans, and peasantry.

Yet despite poverty, hardship and anti-Jewish outbreaks, Polish Jewry viewed themselves as in a good position, especially when compared with the Jews of Germany or the Iberian peninsula. The Jewish population grew to between

220,000 and half a million by the first half of the seventeenth century, representing up to 5% of the total population of the Kingdom of Poland, which then included the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Jews viewed their fate in Polin (‘Dwell here’) as part of the Divine plan on the inevitable road to the coming of the Mashiach.

“All nations come to an end but not the Jews”

Jews soon settled in about 1000 places all over Poland. They created great communities, large and small, with their distinct Polish-Ashkenaz culture infused with and bolstered by Jewish tradition and led by great Rabbinic scholars and leaders. The Kings of Poland gave the Jewish communities a semblance of real power and they were given official recognition of their self-government. The Jews collected taxes, paid the Rav and the shochet, supported the shtadlanim, ran Batei Din, helped the sick and the poor. They supported education, the Beis Hamedrash, fortified synagogues in places such as Brody, Lublin, Jaroslav, Zamosc and many others, and had the ultimate power of the little used cherem. The Polish kehillos cultivated the differences between Jew and non-Jew in language “juicy mame loshen”, dress, culture, learning, values and behaviour.

All local kehillos came under the unique and special countrywide Council of Four Lands, the Va’ad Arba Aratzos. Sometimes the Four Lands would become Five Lands with the inclusion of Lithuania. The Va’ad of four or five lands demonstrated the greatest degree of Jewish autonomy ever attained by the Jews of Europe (1580-1764). It simply had no equal. It represented all Jews and was accepted by the kehillos as the supreme authority in communal matters.

Nathan of Hanover chronicled:

“The pillar of justice was in the kingdom of Poland, as it was in Jerusalem before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh…the leaders of the Four Lands were like the Sanhedrin…They had the authority to judge all Israel …and to punish each man as they saw fit”

The period of the late sixteenth century to the mid-seventeenth century became known as the Golden Age of Polish Jewry, and if it was rightly famed for the power of its Va’ad Arba Aratzos, it would become even more famous and renowned for the greatness of the Rabbis that graced that period with their phenomenal erudition, learning, codification, teshuvos and yeshivos.


3. We know that Moshe and Aharon died before entering Eretz Yisrael, Israel, due to the sin of Mei Meriva. What sin did Miriam commit that she also died in the desert?

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 ישראל

The Dubno Maggid’s Path To Acceptance

R’Binyomin Zev GoldbergAuthor of ‘Koloh D’Yaakov’ on the Weekly Parsha and the Moadim

“And sprinkle it… on the one who touches… a dead body.” (19:18)

A rich man once lived next door to a poor man. The

rich man saw that the poor man’s face shone with an aura

of health and calmness, something the rich man’s face

never had. Convinced that it was the poor man’s diet that

contributed to this happiness, one morning he approached

the poor man and asked, “Tell me, what do you eat each

day?” In response, the poor man explained that he had

a small portion of bread daily, accompanied by a glass

of water. The rich man was overjoyed, and decided to

immediately try out this new diet. For the next few days he

ate what the poor man did, but after a week, he was lying

ill in bed barely able to move.

He ordered his servants to ask the poor man to come

in, and when he had, the rich man bemoaned his fate. He

told the poor man that he had copied his diet and that this

was the consequence. All he wanted, he said, was to be

happy, and now he was bedridden. Why, he asked the

poor man had he fallen ill? The poor man thought for a

moment, and said, “You should know that my house is

empty of food. When I get up there is nothing to eat and it

is regularly midday by the time I’ve earned enough to buy

food. It is even worse for my wife and children. They have

to wait all day for me to bring home a small piece of dry

bread that they can share. However, you should see the

way they rejoice when I do so. Their happiness on seeing a

loaf of bread is something that you cannot imagine with all

this wealth around you. You are used to better things and

eating a diet restricted to bread makes you ill. We are poor,

and even having a loaf of bread makes us the happiest

people in the world, so when we taste it, we taste the world

to come. Is it any wonder we are happy?”

The Dubno Maggid uses this moshul (parable) to answer

a question on a midrash on this week’s parsha. The midrash

relates that in the course of teaching Moshe the Torah,

whenever Hashem would inform Moshe that something

was tomei (ritually impure), He would simultaneously tell

Moshe how to purify that thing. When it came to Parshas

Emor, Hashem went through the halochos of a Kohen with

Moshe, specifically the laws pertaining to which family

members a Kohen is obligated to become ritually impure

for, and Moshe asked Hashem how a Kohen who became

Tomei could be made pure. However Hashem did not

respond and Moshe consequently became very worried

and crestfallen. When it came to this week’s parsha,

Parshas Chukas, the midrash continues, Hashem told

Moshe, “When we learnt Parshas Emor you asked about

the purification of a Kohen and I did not respond. This

parsha is your response; when a man becomes impure etc.”

The Maggid asks why Hashem did not provide this answer

earlier to Moshe. What was the purpose of delaying the

answer until Parshas Chukas instead of telling Moshe the

solution when he originally asked?

The answer, writes the Maggid, can be found in

the above moshul. The purification process achieved

through the Poroh Adumah (the red heifer whose ashes

are sprinkled on people with certain ritual impurity) is a

statute without any seeming logic, and Hashem wanted us

to simply accept this rule with a happy heart and without

question. That is, Hashem did not want our understanding

of the process described in this part of the Torah to be

any less satisfying and appreciated than other parts. As

such, when Hashem first introduced the concept of tumah,

a problem to which there was as yet no solution, it was

analogous to the hunger felt by the poor man’s family.

Consequently, He left Moshe wondering how to solve the

problem, which served to increase Moshe’s desire for an

answer, just as the poor man’s family wondered where

their food would come from and thus increased their

yearning for food. Finally, just as the poor man’s family

were not only happy with whatever they received but even

thrived on it, so too, concludes the Maggid, Moshe would

be happy with and thrive on the answer Hashem gave him

because he had been required to wait for it, even if it was

imperfect and basic (from his perspective) like a simple

loaf of bread.


4. Aaron died a special death known as “Neshikah”. What do we know about this death?

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

HA

LAC

HA

D

RIV

INGA Practical Halachic Guide to Safe Driving

[Part 5 of 6 Part Series]

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

D. A PERSON WHO ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC - RODEF1. A person who physically ‘pursues’ another individual or other

individuals in any manner which endangers their life is called a rodef - a ‘pursuer’.1

2. A person who engages in an activity which endangers the public is also halachically considered a rodef.2

3. Although in most cases where a person does not comply with the law, it is halachically prohibited to inform the authorities about their illegal activities, the situation of rodef is different.3

4. In most cases, informing the authorities about the illegal activities of another Jewish person is called mesirah, which is a very serious transgression.

5. A person who informs the authorities about the illegal activities of another Jewish person is called a moser.

6. In very exceptional circumstances, however, including situations where one person endangers the lives of the public, it is often permitted and indeed mandatory to inform the authorities about that person’s activities in order to prevent them from any further dangerous conduct.

7. Therefore, if time permits, a person who is classified as a rodef should be warned once or twice to cease his dangerous conduct.4

8. If a rodef does not comply with the warning given to him, or if there is not enough time to warn him to stop his dangerous conduct, it is permitted, and required, to inform the relevant authorities who will be able to stop the rodef from continuing to endanger the public.5

9. It is halachically irrelevant whether or not the rodef intends to endanger the public. Even if the rodef does not intend to cause harm, he is still halachically considered a rodef.6

E. A DRIVER WHO ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC - RODEF1. A person who drives at an excessive speed (i.e., beyond the

designated speed limit on that road) and will not be able to stop his vehicle when necessary without causing an accident, is halachically classified in the category of rodef.7

1 ע' סנהדרין עג א דיש דילפינן דין זה מהפסוק "לא תעמד על דם רעך" )ויקרא יט טז( ויש דילפינן מפסוק אחר. וע' רשב"ם שם, ספר החינוך רלז, ותורה תמימה שם אות קט, ושו"ע חו"מ סי' תכה.

2 רמ"א חו"מ סי' תכה סע' א' וז"ל מי שמסכן רבים, כגון שעוסק בזיופם, דינו כרודף ומותר למוסרו למלכות. וכ"כ בסי' שפח סע' יב דמי שעוסק בזיופים ויש לחוש שיזיק לרבים, מתרין בו שלא יעשה, ואם אינו משגיח, יכולין

למסרו וכו' עכ"ל. וע' אג"מ או"ח ח"ה סי' ט אות יא )תשובה להגר"ג קרויס שליט"א, ראב"ד מנשסתר( אבל לכאורה מש"כ שם אינו נוגע לעניינו דאיכא סכנת נפשות.

3 ע' שו"ע חו"מ סי' שפח באריכות, ובספר המשפט וישראל, ח"א פרק יז4 שם5 שם

6 ביאור הגר"א חו"מ סי' תכה ומקורו מעובדא דסוף ב"ק דף קיז ב ההוא גברא דאקדים ואסיק חמרא למברא קמי דסליקו אינשי. בעי לאטבועי. אתא ההוא גברא, מלח ליה לחמרא דההוא גברא ושדייה לנהרא וטבע. אתא

לקמיה דרבה. פטריה. אמר ליה אביי: והא מציל עצמו בממון חבירו הוא? א"ל: האי מעיקרא רודף הוה עכ"ל. ומבואר דאע"פ שבעל החמור לא כיוון לסכן אחרים, מ"מ "רודף" מקרי. וכ"פ הרמב"ם פ"ח מהל' חובל ומזיק

הל' טו ובשו"ע חו"מ סי' שפ סע' ד' בהגה.7 שו"ת מנח"י ח"ח סי' קמח. וכתב שם דהרי אף הרבה פחות מזה ]מהירות מופרזת[ כתב בשו"ת הרא"ש כלל קא

2. A person who drives at an excessive speed is also classified as a sofek rotzeiach, sofek m’abed atzmo lodaas – a possibly murdererous, possibly suicidal person.8 By driving at extreme speeds, a driver exposes himself to a high risk of killing other people as well as himself.

3. Therefore, if possible, a person who is observed driving at an excessive speed should first be warned (directly, or preferably through a Rav or a Beis Din) to drive safely and within the speed limit.9

4. If it is not possible to warn the driver or the driver fails to comply with a warning, one is permitted to report him to the police or other relevant authorities, as described above in Part D.10

5. The following types of drivers are also halachically classified as rodfim and the rules above apply:11

a. A driver who does not stop where signs indicate that he should stop in order to allow pedestrians to cross the road.

b. A driver who does not stop to allow oncoming vehicles travelling from other directions to pass by.

c. A driver who overtakes another vehicle in a dangerous manner.

d. A driver who drives a vehicle without having passed a driving test which testifies that he knows how to drive a car and to control it when required.

6. In all of the above cases, it is irrelevant as to whether or not the driver intends to cause harm.12

אות ה )הובא בטור חו"מ סי' שעח( לגבי מי שרכב ע"ג סוס, ופגע בחתן שהיה רוכב לפניו בפרד, והזיק הפרד וגרם הפסד גדול להחתן ששכר את הפרד, וכתב הרא"ש "שאין לרוץ ברה"ר אפי' אדם ברגליו אלא כדי שיוכל

לעמוד כשירצה וכו' כ"ש הרוכב על סוס שאין לא רשות ]לרוץ[ במקום סכנה במקום שבני אדם רוכבים שמא לא יוכל לעמוד כשירצה, ופושע הוא ומזיק בגופו הוא וכו' ע"ש. על זה כ' המנח"י וז"ל וא"כ ק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו כמו ניד"ד בנסיעה ברכב במהירות מופרזת, דיש לו דין מזיק ממש, ואם הוא נוסע באופן היוצא מכלל שיעור הניתן,

יש לו בזה דין רודף וכו' עכ"ל. וכ"פ בשו"ת תשובות והנהגות ח"א סי' תתנ וכ"פ הגר"י זילברשטיין שליט"א והגרז"נ גולדברג שליט"א בגליון בית דוד )וארא-בא תש"ס( וכ"פ במשפטי התורה סי' ל סע' ג וכן נראה דעת

הפתחי חושן, נזיקין פרק ד הע' כב.

לכאורה יש כאן מקום לבעל דין לחלוק על הנ"ל ולומר דאע"פ שקבעו השלטונים מגבלות-מהירות בכל כביש ורחוב, מ"מ אין הכרח שנהיגה במהירות יותר ממה שקבעו השלטונים מהוה סכנה, אלא שהוצרכו לקבוע איזה

שיעור לכל רחוב וכביש וזהו מה שקבעו ע"פ השערה בלבד שמהירות זאת מתאים לאותו כביש. אבל כמה תשובות יש בדבר, ומהם: א( אפי' את"ל כן, מ"מ מגדר ספק סכנה לא יצא. ב( שיעורים אלו לא נקבעו סתם בלי

טעם וסיבה, אלא השלטונות יש להם חוקרים ומחקרים מדעיים שהם מומחים במקצוע של אסונות ותאונות, וחוקרים בעניינים אלו ומבינים הסיבות הגורמים לאסונות ותאונות. וע"י המידע המדעיי שהם נותנים לשלטונות,

המחוקקים קובעים ומתקנים את חוקי התנועה ומגבלות-מהירות בכל כביש ואזור. ולאחרונה בהרבה שכונות ואזורים פה באנגליה המעיטו את מגבלות-מהירות עקב מידע מדעיי שנהיגה במהירות פחותה עוזרת למעט

מספר התאונות ומיתות ח"ו שנגרמו ע"י מכוניות ושאר רכבים. ולכן, כמו בהרבה ענייני הלכה התלויים בהבנת המציאות ,ובפרט בענייני חו"מ, צריכים אנו לקבל דעת המומחים בענינים אלו, )וכן מנהג הפשוט בבתי דין

להתיעץ ולהסתמך בדעת מומחים בענינים כאלו(, ולסמוך עליהם ששיעוריהם נקבעו בטוב טעם ודעת ולנהוג כפי חוקיהם.

8 שו"ת שבט הלוי ח"ו סי' קיב א:ד וז"ל ]מ[ש"ס יומא ע"ז ב דאסור לעבור בנחל שמימיו רדופין, ומביאו הגרש"ז בשו"ע דרב ה' שמירת הנפש סי"א, והיינו אם המים מגיעים למעלה ממתניים ע"ש. ופשוט מאד דבכלל הלכות

אלו בזמנינו, אלו הנוסעים במכונית אוטא במהירות גדולה, וכל אחד רוצה להקדים לחבירו, וכבר ידוע כמה קפחו חייהם כבר בע"ה והוא סכנה גמורה זה וכיו"ב ספק רציחה, ספק מאבד עצמו לדעת עכ"ל.

9 שו"ת מנח"י שם10 שם, ובשו"ת תשובות והנהגות שם וכ"פ הגר"י זילברשטיין שליט"א והגרז"נ גולדברג שליט"א בגליון בית דוד

)וארא-בא תש"ס(, וכן שמעתי מהר"ח קאהן שליט"א, דומ"ץ בניו יורק וראש מכון לחושן משפט שם.11 שו"ת מנח"י שם. ולכאורה יש עוד הרבה ציורים שנחשבים כרודף, אבל כתבתי רק מה שראיתי להדיא בפוסקים.

12 שם עפ"י ביאור הגר"א חו"מ תכה ס"ק


5. Moshe set up a copper statue of a snake. How long did this remain in existence?

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

PAR

SH

AHSpeak to them

Rabbi Shimshon SilkinRabbi of Beis Yisroel Borehamwood & Chazon UK

In today’s challenging generation, when discipline is on the decline, is there an optimum method of educating our children?

This week’s parshah contains the infamous episode referred to as Mei Meriva, the waters of strife, involving Moshe Rabbenu’s deviation from the initial command of speaking to the rock by hitting it instead. But would anyone be any less impressed seeing water burst forth from a dry rock when struck by a stick rather than when addressed with words? And why was the response so harsh: “Since you did not generate belief in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of Bnei Yisrael, therefore you shall not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:7, see Rashi)? Lastly, how does the punishment fit the crime? What did access to Eretz Yisrael have to do with striking, rather than speaking to the rock?

Rashi, in his commentary to the passuk describing Miriam’s passing just prior to this encounter, teaches that Klal Yisrael were at a major crossroads at this very time. On the words “The whole congregation,” he says, ‘The entire assembly, because all the dead ones of the desert (as a result of the sin of the spies) had died out whilst these were spared for life.’ The Netziv explains that this tells us a critical fact: the Jewish nation were now in a transitional situation – they were on the cusp of entering a new reality in Eretz Yisrael which would differ sharply from what they had been used to in the midbar (Ha’emek Davar introduction to Sefer Bamidbar.) No longer would bread fall from the heavens, no longer would their clothes and shoes endure forever, no longer would Miriam’s well sustain them and no longer would they be protected by a shield of clouds. From this point on they would have to create their own sustenance and security. And it was vital that the Yidden would start to turn that corner now – they would have to wean themselves off the Divine protection they had become used to and begin developing a new mindset. In the words of the Sfas Emes, it was time to transform from emes to emunah, from the open, stark truth of Hashem’s providence to one of faith in it (Chukas 654).

This transition was supposed to be represented by the switch from the staff to the tongue. Moshe’s staff had been the symbol of hope and salvation for the Yidden since they first set eyes on it in Mitzrayim. It performed miracles, it instigated plagues, it split seas, it led them in battle. The staff, whose very name “mateh” means “to divert” nature, had become the emblem of a supernatural existence. Now it was time to take the staff and lay it on the ground, and in its place the power of speech would start to lead. The Gemara tells us that the entire physical universe – what we might call the natural world – was created through words (Megillah 21:2) as the passuk says, “Through the word of Hashem the Heavens were created and through the air of His mouth all their hosts.” (Tehillim 33:5). These words drew out of the initial utterance of Creation all that came into being (see Zohar to Bereishis 1). Words thus have the power to extract the latent qualities that lie within; through the power of speech, inherent goodness is encouraged to flourish. And this would be the task of the Jewish people as they entered Eretz Yisrael – a task of words, to extract the qualities that lay within the land. No longer would goodness be foisted upon them by way of a mateh; rather they would have to mine it from deep within.

Moshe was being asked to oversee that transition – no more “lehatos”, to force the issue, it was time for “ledaber”, to gently coax it forth. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to Hashem and himself, Moshe was not in a position to do so. Perhaps, as Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen explains, Moshe was too far removed from the natural world to supervise such a transition. But alas that meant he could not bring the People any further.

For us, in our attempts to draw the inherent goodness out of our own charges, be they our students or children, we must take similar heed. The stick, which represents the enforcement of discipline, can only be used sparingly, if at all. Far more important is the task of drawing out the latent goodness inherent in every child. This is why the Torah enjoins us: “Vedibarta bam”, educate your child by speaking to them, giving expression to the true inner qualities that lie within.


6. How does the lack of Parah Adumah relate to us nowadays?

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

AHBurning The Talmud: Then & Now

Rabbi Zvi PortnoyLoughton & Chigwell Federation Synagogue

Last week we ushered in the month of Tammuz and with it we began to ponder the painful history of tragic events that occurred to the Jewish nation on an unprecedented scale. The period of Bein Hametzarim, the Three Weeks, begin soon with Shiva Asar b’Tammuz – the 17th Day of Tammuz, gradually intensifying until we reach Tisha b’Av itself, when we commemorate the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem.

There are two other days at this time of year, which are sometimes overlooked and yet which nevertheless fit only too well into the theme of this difficult period in the Jewish calendar. The Magen Avraham at the very end of Hilchos Taaniyos notes that on the Friday preceding Shabbos parshas Chukas, some individuals have the minhag to fast. The reason he gives for this custom is the burning of 20 wagon loads of sefarim, in France, at this time of year.

Whilst with today’s technology, 20 wagon loads may not appear to be such an enormous volume of books, before the era of the printing press, every single sefer produced involved painstaking toil and energy. The enormity of this tragedy was both a tremendous Chillul Hashem and a threat to the shalsheles hakabbalah – the undiluted transmission of Torah through the generations.

Interestingly though, unlike most other similar occasions in the Jewish year, we do not commemorate this occasion with a specific date in the calendar, but rather on a specific day, the Friday preceding Shabbos parshas Chukas. Why should this be the case? The

parshah of Chukas begins ‘Zos chukas haTorah’ which the Targum translates as ‘do gzeyras oraisa.’ They were told through a dream that what was going to occur to Klal Yisrael was appropriate and hence intrinsically linked to the parshah. Therefore we commemorate it, not on a specific date, but on a day immediately prior to that parshah. This Friday is therefore a sad day as we remember the destruction of thousands of sefarim in Paris in 1244. How tragic, how painful and how relevant this is to us today as Nazis threaten to do the same thing next Shabbos in London.

This Friday is also a sad day in history for another reason. The Gemara in Taanis states that one might have thought that the reason why 17th Tammuz is a sad day is because ‘huvka ha’ir’ – the city was broken into, prior to being destroyed entirely. The Gemara goes on to state that the wall was actually breached on the 9th of Tammuz! However the Gemara concludes that in the time of the first Beis Hamikdash it was breached on the 9th of tammuz, but in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash the city was breached on the 17th. Therefore the Ramban who is also quoted by the Magen Avrohom, mentions there are also those who fast on the ninth day as well.

So there are those who may consider fasting on 9th Tammuz for the first Beis Hamikdash and then again on 17th for the second Beis Hamikdash.Yet due to the difficulty of fasting twice so close in succession we are only obligated to fast on 17th Tammuz. Despite not having to fast this Friday, surely we should pause to reflect that with 9th Tammuz, erev Shabbos Parshas Chukas, we begin a period of sadness, tragedy and tremendous difficulty for Klal Yisrael.

May we all be zoche, through our genuine sadness over what we have lost, to have fulfilled through us the words of the Gemara in Sotah: 'Kol hamisabel al Yerushalayim zoche v'roe b'simchaso'.


7. What miracles in Parshas Chukas obligate us to say a brachah to commemorate this salvation?

S P O N S O R E D

Kindly Sponsored by theRACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST

7

PAR

SH

AH

HA

LAC

HA

K

AS

HR

USכולל הלכה ברורה

Headed by Rabbi Yehoshua FrickersThis week: R' Zach FordKollel Halocho Berura is an evening chabura of Baale Battim in Golders Green, learning הל‘ בשר וחלב currently finishing בס“ד We are .למעשה to מקורות from the הלכה and thank Oneg Shabbos for this opportunity to share what we are learning with you.

Demisting Zeiah in Halachah

BACKGROUNDThe concept of zeiah (steam emitted from hot food) forms an important

principle in Hilchos basar b’chalav; namely that food can interact with another item without coming into direct contact with it. The transfer of taste via steam therefore acts as a fundamental premise to she’eilos surrounding microwaves and ovens. These cases will be briefly outlined below – please ask your local Rav for a final psak.

The basic premise for the halachos of zeiah, is found in a mishnah in Maseches Machshirin1. The Mishnah discusses how steam emitted from a bathhouse will carry the potency of the tamei water within it and upon condensing on the surrounding walls, will transfer tumah to the rest of the bathhouse.

The Rosh2 derives from this mishnah that steam emanating from a hot food item will assume the status of the food item itself and can transfer the taste of item A to another food item or utensil.

The Shulchan Aruch3, following the Rosh, paskens that zeiah rising from a milky pot will be absorbed into a meaty pot placed above it, creating basar b’chalav. The meaty pot will therefore become assur.

MICROWAVES

Q. Shloimie put a bowl of chicken soup, uncovered, into his milky microwave that had been used for porridge that morning (ben yomo). What is the din of the microwave, bowl and chicken soup?Microwave

As mentioned above, even though there is no direct contact between the previous absorption of porridge milk contained in the walls of the microwave and the chicken soup, the steam emanating from the chicken soup will enter the walls of the microwave and create basar b’chalav. The microwave, now containing a fusion of meat and milk, would hence be assur.4

THE SOUP AND THE BOWLSince this interaction takes place within the relatively confined space of

microwave walls, it seems obvious that the steam containing this fusion of basar b’chalav will come into contact with the soup and the bowl, also rendering it assur.5

THE CASE OF THE MISTAKEN OVEN

Q. Will Shloimie’s fortunes change if he mistakenly baked his pizza in a meaty ben yomo oven? What is the status of the pizza, the baking tray and the oven?

Although similar to the aforementioned she’eilah, there is a debate in the poskim as to whether a solid or a dry item are also subject to the din of zeiah.

The Pri Megadim6 suggests that the laws of zeiah may only apply to steam emanating from liquids and not to steam emitted from solid foods. Therefore, even if you see zeiah rising from a solid item, it may not pose a problem.

Coming from a slightly different perspective, Rav Moshe Feinstein7 states that zeiah from solid items could indeed be problematic, however if the food is dry e.g. challah, one can assume that it didn’t produce any steam at all.

1 2:112 Teshuvos 20:263 Y”D 92:8 4 The microwave would be assur even if it were not ben yomo, see 93 :15 Dagul Mervovo. Pri Megadim.6 Mentioned in Pischei Teshuvah 92 :57 Y”D 1:40

PIZZAAccording to Pri Megadim, the pizza may not be problematic as it could be

considered a solid item. However, according to Rav Moshe, the melted cheese on top of the pizza may not meet the criterion of a dry food due to its moist texture. Consequently, perhaps we should be concerned that zeiah is produced. Moreover, the Aruch HaShulchan8 states that zeiah applies to a greasy or fatty type of food and melted cheese may well fall into this category, and hence the pizza could be assur9.

OVENAssuming that zeiah is produced and that it is indeed problematic, the milky

b’liyos (absorbed flavours) of the pizza would enter the oven’s walls and fuse with the meaty b’liyos creating basar b’chalav, and therefore this is assur.

TRAYThe status of the tray depends on various factors (such as if one using

greaseproof paper etc) and it is beyond the scope of this article to address them.

PAREVE FOOD IN A MILKY CONTAINER PUT INTO A MEATY MICROWAVE (OR VICE VERSA)

Q. Dovid put his (pareve) vegetable soup in a milky bowl, but heated it up in a

meaty microwave. What is the din?

Since there is no direct fusion between any milky b’liyos in the utensil (as they travel via the soup), this case would fall into the category of ‘nat bar nat’ (covered in the previous article10) and is therefore muttar11.

COOKER HOODS

Q. Assuming that one uses the same hob to cook meaty and milky items, could

there be an issue with the same cooker hood receiving milky and meaty zeiah?

A. Since the zeiah emitted from the food will likely not be yad soledes by the time it reaches the hood, it will not carry enough potency to assur anything else12.

Furthermore since, unlike an oven, the steam rises in an open area, any zeiah will be dispersed and not fall back down13.

CONDIMENTS (SALT, KETCHUP ETC).

Q. Dovid adds some salt to his steaming chulent and wonders if the zeiah

affects the saltshaker requiring separate milky or meaty condiments?

A. Some poskim recommend having separate condiments, however others argue that when the contents are poured out, the zeiah that might enter is blocked from penetrating any perforations and hence the condiment remains parev.14

8 92 :549 Rav Moshe Feinstein 1:59 writes that in ovens where the heating element is on top,

any zeiah may be burnt up before it is absorbed in the walls. (Rabbi Benzion Wosner maintains that due to the intense heat created in an oven, any zeiah will be burnt out before it has the opportunity to hit the wall).

10 See Oneg Parshas Shelach Lecha by Avrumi Hager11 Pri Megadim Mishbezos 92 :2912 Rema 92:813 Yad Yehuda 92:5214 Heard in the name of Rav Y. Berkovits.

QUI

Z TI

ME

ANSW

ERS IDEAS FOR ANSWERS

1 There are three types of mitzvos: eidos, mishpatim and chukim. Eidos means "testimonies". Eidos include the mitzvos of Tefillin, Sukkah, Bris Milah which all testify that Hashem is the Creator of the world. Mishpatim means "judgements". Included are the mitzvos of stealing, murder, overcharging and other matters which one can understand intellectually even without the Torah – e.g. the need for a law system in society. Chukim are statutes, decrees for which we do not fathom a reason. The mitzvah itself can be a chok, as can the details of how we do the mitzvah for example we have the mitzvah of Korban Pesach which includes the prohibition of breaking any bone of the sacrifice. This prohibition is a chok. Another meaning of chok is "boundary" since where we are given a mitzvah whose understanding is beyond us, we are required to set limits regarding how much we think into its meaning. (See Rabbeinu Bechaye beginning of Parshas Chukas.)

2 The beginning of Parshas Chukas is also read on the third of the Four Parshiyos, known as Parshas Parah.

3 I currently do not have an answer. I would be delighted if someone could tell me one!

4 Neshikah means "kiss". It is the easiest out of all 903 deaths (Gemara Brochos 8a) and is compared to removing a hair from milk. It is the "kiss of death" where the neshamah is drawn and sucked out of the body by Hashem Himself, to rise and come close to Him. This exit is painless.

However, usually the death of a person is a most painful experience for the soul and the screams should really be so loud to be heard all over the world (Gemara end of Yoma 20b).

5 The Gemara (Pesachim 56a) brings that King Chizkiya instituted six things. For three of these actions the Sages criticized him while they agreed to the other three. One of the agreed actions was to destroy the copper snake statue set up by Moshe. The reason was that the Jews were coming to believe that the statue had the power to heal, instead of attributing this power to Hashem.

6 The ashes of the Parah Adumah purify us from the tumah that comes from contact with dead bodies. Nowadays since we don't have ashes from the Para Adumah, nor the means to sacrifice it according to the din, we cannot achieve purity from this tumah.

7 The Gemara (Brachos 54a-b) tells the story of a miracle in Parshas Chukas. Two mountains moved together and killed the enemy hiding in caves waiting to ambush the Jews. The aron went ahead of the Jewish people in the wilderness, flattening mountains and moving aside all obstacles. Thus this great miracle was only discovered afterwards. Two people afflicted with tzara'as who were following the Jews from outside the encampment saw blood from the enemy gushing into a river. When a person sees this place, Nachalai Arnon, he is obligated to say a brachah, blessing, over this miracle.

8

PAR

SH

AHNot just Flesh and Bones

Rabbi Avrohom Yitzchak Elbaz Rosh Kollel Nishmas Aaron Chaim Jerusalem Israel, Posek at Yeshivat Aish Hatorah, Rova Hayehudi

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

In this week’s parshah we encounter a most enigmatic mitzvah, Parah Adumah. Even the wisest of all men, Shlomo Hamelech, said “Amarti echkamah v’hi rechokah memeni I said, ‘I will be wise’, but it was far from me.”(Koheles 7:23). Shlomo understood the ta’amei hamitzvos, the universe, speech between animals, everything, but one thing eluded him… Parah Adumah. Chazal tell us that the contradiction of the impure becoming pure, and the pure becoming impure at the same time, was beyond King Shlomo’s grasp. Obviously, if Shlomo did not understand, then how can we? We can’t, but we can try to explain.

The Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh asks, why does the passuk say, “Zos Chukas HaTorah? The verse does not describe the whole Torah, but only the Parah Adumah. Why then does it say “Zos Chukas Hatorah”? Zos chukas haparah would have been more appropriate. He answers by saying that the Torah is teaching us a fundamental idea here: everything in the Torah is a chok. All of the mitzvos are not for the human mind to understand. How could we understand them? If Hashem gave us all the Torah, then by extension, all the mitzvos too are G-dly. Can Man understand G-d’s ways? Zos chukkas haTorah teaches us that comprehension of all mitzvos is beyond us.

How then is it possible for the Sefer HaChinuch to explain the ta’amei hamitzvos after every mitzvah? The answer is, there are two types of

“taam”. Besides meaning “the reason”, “taam” also means taste. When one tastes food to see if it’s salty, sweet etc., one doesn’t taste the whole pot! One only tastes a little at a time. That’s what ta’amei hamitzvos are. Only a taste only, a little bit, of Hashem’s world. To understand fully is beyond our grasp.

This is what is meant by the response to the chacham’s question in the Haggadah Shel Pesach. “Ein maftirin achar hapesach afikoman” the last taste in the mouth of a Yid on Leil Haseder is the Korban Pesach. The question was “Ma ha’eidos vehachukim, etc?” and we answer….what? It must be that the real answer is “maa’seh action” We don’t know Hashem’s reason, we can’t really explain, but one thing we do know, the ma’aseh mitzvah , the act of performing the mitzvah, works. If a Yid does the

mitzvah he will understand intuitively why. He may not be able to express it in words, but he understands. This is the message of the Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh. The whole Torah is a “chok”. Ultimately we don’t understand anything. The depth and breadth of the mitzvos are beyond human comprehension, but we still do them. We know and feel it’s true, and when a Yid does the mitzvos, he becomes purer and purer. “Zos chukas haTorah,” just do it and you’ll see the difference.

This is not a new concept. Even at Kabbalas haTorah, we said “Naaseh Venishma” we will do, even before we understand. How could that be? We don’t have to understand what we do. If we trust Hashem to give his Torah to us, we know it’s going to be good. The action speaks louder than words.

Imagine trying to persuade someone who has never tasted chocolate ice cream before to taste it. “Why?” he asks. You answer, “It’s sweet and brown and melts everywhere. Eat it quickly before it becomes a sticky liquid.” Do you imagine you can convince him? No way!! Finally “Just taste it!” you say. He tastes it, and the rest is history. “Lehavdil” these are the mitzvos. Na’aseh v’nishma!” just do it and the rest is history. This is the message to the chacham - the action is the ikar. Ein maftirin achar hapesach afikoman.

With this explanation we can understand the next Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh. Why is the body of the Yid tamei after death? What makes it different from any other human body? The Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh explains with a mashal. A vessel that is empty will never attract bees. However a vessel that once contained honey will, why? It must be that there are remnants still present that are attracting the bees. So, too, the connection of the Yiddishe neshamah to the guf, the body. What gives the guf holiness? Ma’aseh mitzvos. Every action infuses the body with holiness. This is such a phenomenon that even after death, a Yid’s body is holy. The vessel for the neshamah was affected throughout its life. The ma’aseh is what makes an effect on the body. Actions throughout life made an impression. The void of a lack of kedushah, of not having an opportunity to absorb more holiness, has a residual effect of tumah on the body. Until now it was saturated and now it is empty.

As Torah-true Yidden, we have a responsibility and this expresses itself in our actions as well. It is no wonder then the inyan of kavod hames is so important to us. The guf is not merely flesh and bones which can be discarded without care. On the contrary because of its special place as a vessel that absorbed the ma’aseh mitzvos throughout life, now it retains its kedushah.

May we all be zocheh to “taste” and absorb all the mitzvos and imbibe the kedushah that is our privilege since Matan Torah.

Documents

Oneg Chukas