K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D

בס"ד

From Parshas Vayikra the Oneg will be available via email ONLY

Join the global mailing list by emailing mc@markittech.com

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

For Questions on Divrei Torah or articles, to receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email mc@markittech.com

PAR

SH

AH

מוצש’’קשבת מברכיןLONDON: 5:51 PM

הדלקת נרותLONDON: 4:40 PM

WHY WAS YEHOSHUA CHOSEN?R’ Motti TurkelKollel Toras Chaim Headed by Rabbi Avi Wiesenfeld

Now in Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Bet Shemesh, Borehamwood, Chile, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Hong Kong, Ilford, Johannesburg, Las Vegas, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Melbourne, Miami, New York, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, Radlett, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich

SEND IN YOUR ONEG PICTURES

NOW! mc@markittech.

com

For any questions on Divrei Torah please

contact the Editor in Chief,

Rabbi Yonasan Roodyn

rabbiroodyn@jewishfuturestrust.com

OnegShabbosNorth West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets

פרשת משפטים6th February 2016 כ”ז שבט תשע"ו

“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Yehoshua” (Avos 1:1)

In Parshas Shlach Lecha the Torah lists out the names of the meraglim who went to spy out on Eretz Yisroel, and the Ramban notes that the Torah lists them not in order of their tribes and not in order of their ages, but rather in order of their greatness. Yehoshua is listed out number five out of nine, meaning that there were four other meraglim greater than him. If so the question arises; why was Yehoshua the one chosen to lead Klal Yisroel after Mosheh Rabeinu, why not one of the other Meraglim who were listed as being greater than Yehoshua?

Perhaps the answer to this question lies in this week’s Parshah; it says towards the

end of the Parshah: (24:13) ‘And Moshe got up and Yehoshua aided him, and Moshe ascended the mountain of Hashem’.

Rashi on this Posuk asks; what was Yehoshua doing here, when Moshe is about to go up Har Sinai to Hashem? Rashi explains, Yehoshua was a talmid following his Rebbe all the way to Har Sinai until they arrived at the bottom of the mountain where Yehoshua was no longer allowed to accompany Moshe Rabeinu further. At this point Moshe ascended the mountain to Hashem for forty days where he would learn the entire Torah and prepare himself to give it over to Klal Yisrael. Yehoshua then pitched his tent at the bottom of the mountain and waited there for forty days.

The obvious question which the Mefarshim ask is; if Yehoshua knew that Moshe would be in shamayim for forty days, why did he decide to pitch his tent at the

bottom of the mountain and wait there, why didn’t he go back to the camp where his family were and then forty days later return to Har Sinai to greet Moshe and be mekabel the Torah?

The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Harav Yehudah Zev Segal zt”l explains that the nature of a person is when he

has something very important to him or he wants something very desperately whether it’s an appointment with a big doctor, an important business meeting or even a flight to catch etc. He will do all types of effort possible, to make sure he will get it, and when the time comes near, he will make sure to be there extra early not taking any risks in order to be there on tim, he will do the maximum within his capability not to miss this vital moment.

As far as Yehoshua was concerned, the Torah was his number one priority, it was so important to him and he wanted it so much, he was afraid that if he would return to the camp and his day to day routine and then go back to greet Moshe at the end of the 40 days, perhaps he would get held up or delayed. He could then possibly miss the first minute of his kabalas Hatorah, and it wasn’t worth taking the risk. For this reason Yehoshua decided not to return to his family but rather pitch his tent at the bottom of the mountain, this way being guaranteed to be present for the entire kabalas Hatorah and not miss one second!

It was because of this tremendous determination that Yehoshua possessed he was zoche to be chosen as the leader of Klal Yisroel.

A. NAASEH B. NAASEH VENISHMAHOnly ONE of the following 7 statements is true, which is it:

1. Both A and B come in both Parshas Yisro and Parshas Mishpotim2. Neither A and B come at all in Parshas Yisro and Mishpotim3. A only comes in Yisro B only comes in Mishpotim4. B only comes in Yisro A only comes in Mishpotim5. A and B come in Yisro A only comes in Mishpotim6. B only comes in Yisro A and B comes in Mishpotim7. A only comes in Yisro A and B comes in Mishpotim

Riddle of the Week

by B

oru

ch K

ahan

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E

1. What Seder in Mishnayos mostly comes from Parshas Mishpatim?

torahanytime.com

More than 20,000 Torah videos & over 400 different speakers

NO FONE FURSDAY!Not touching your phone throughout Shacharis on Thursday mornings.Can you handheld that? 0800-613-HANDLE-IT?

PAR

SH

AHTHE CHIDDUSH OF MISHPATIM

Rabbi Zvi GefenAish UK

2

When we approach the study of mishpatim, the civil laws that govern our interpersonal and financial interactions, there are some interesting points to consider.

Tosfos (Bechoros 48a) say that the laws of damages have the status of a milveh hakesuva batorah. This means that that they are considered a novel idea that one would not have been able to figure out had the Torah not revealed them. Tosfos explain that if someone steals your money it’s obvious that he needs to give it back. But when he breaks your window and you still have all the pieces, he hasn’t actually taken anything tangible away. Although you don’t have a functional window any more, he hasn’t removed anything from your possession. The Torah comes along and teaches that one can and must redress the damage done through paying money. To our minds, this seems obvious and not much of a chiddush at all, so why does the Torah need to come along and reveal the fact that the perpetrator needs to pay?

The Sefer Hachinuch explains that the Torah forbids us from taking revenge because anything that happens to us is ultimately by Divine decree. No human being has the capacity to harm us if we are not deserving of it in some way. If so, there is no reason to get upset at, or seek vengeance from anyone who has aggrieved us, since ultimately it was meant to happen to us, and the perpetrator is essentially a messenger to carry out Hashem’s decree. (Of course this does not mean that he was

allowed to behave in such a way, and will have to take responsibility for his misdeeds.)

Whenever we experience a loss and feel aggrieved, our natural reaction is to lash out at the one who harmed us. On a deeper level however we ought to spend time thinking why this may have happened to us, why would an all loving, all giving G-d have allowed this apparent injustice to take place? Of course everything that Hashem does is for the best and He has determined that we need to experience a loss (of whatever magnitude). This loss is actually good for us, in that it is a message from Hashem. If so, then we should actually be paying the perpetrator for the priveilege!!! The chiddush of the laws of nezikin is therefore that even though it’s the best thing for us, the perpetrator still has to pay for the damage.

Hashem doesn’t allow these things to happen to make us upset and bitter human beings, but rather to build us and make us more mature people. Financial loss, with all the hardship involved can be an impetus for soul searching and evaluating the relationship we have with the physical world.

Yes we have certain financial rights, but they need to be pursued without vengeance and without spite. The emotions we feel should be channelled and focused on our own growth. The parsha of mishpatim is to deal with the perpetrator, but for the victim it’s like everything else; Hashem is talking to us all day. Hashem gives us assignments, Hashem is helping us grow, bringing us closer more, bringing us to a point that we are more and more like Him, the process involves some situations that are uncomfortable but they are helping us grow and for this we have to be grateful.

News from the Churva shul and the Zilberman Yeshiva in the Old City of YerushalayimThe bachurim continue to press forward with new initiatives! A large number of them have signed up for a structured review schedule. Every day, Sunday through Thursday, they studies one page of the Tanach (Koren Edition) with commentaries that explain the plain meaning. Then they goes over that page four more times. One reviews the same page a week later, and again a month later! At the end of two years, be’ezras Hashem, they will have reviewed all the books of the Prophets and the Writings! Want to join in? torahfromzion@gmail.com - שמעון בן ישר

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E

2. When else during the year do we read from Parshas Mishpatim?

T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D B Y T H E F E D E R A T I O N

07860 017 641SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A SHAILA? ASK THE federation

This Page is kindly sponsored by the

Federation

FED

ERA

TIO

NTHE RETURN OF THE TALLISRabbi Sruli GuttentagWhitefield Community Kollel and Federation ShailaText

3

Picture yourself in shul wrapped in tallis and tefillin. Suddenly you’re called out to deal with a matter of pressing urgency. Perhaps you are a Hatzolo member and have been called upon to deal with an emergency. Tefillin and tallis are removed swiftly and seconds later you find yourself out on the street. Later, you head back to shul to continue your davening. Tallis and tefillin are about to be put back on and then... you freeze…do I make a new bracha or not?

The words of the Gemara in Succah 46a are the key source in these questions. Loosely translated, this Gemara reads:

“Every time tefillin move from their place and are returned you make a new bracha”.

The principle of hesech hada’as (distraction) which is at play here dictates that a bracha made at the initial stage of mitzvah involvement is valid only as long as you are still engaged in that mitzvah; if you stop, and pick up again later, a new bracha is required. In our context, once removed, the mitzvah of tefillin has terminated and a new bracha is required before reengaging.

Let’s point out that this Gemara refers to a case when tefillin slipped from their place. Unclear is what would happen if they were intentionally removed. Would the intention to return to the mitzvah ensure a continuity to the mitzvah action?

The Tur when teaching the laws of tallis debated the same question and indeed concludes that the mitzvah actions are to be considered as one.

Potentially in conflict with the Tur’s conclusion is the conduct of Rava as recorded on the very same page of gemoro. Rava, who wore tefillin all day, surely would have intended to return to the mitzvah after visiting the bathroom. Yet, we are taught that when laying the tefillin after being excused, he would “wash his hands, lay his tefillin and make a bracha”. Indeed, citing this source, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 8:14) paskens that a new bracha needs to be made when tallis or tefillin are fully removed and then replaced.

Is there really a conflict between these sources? The Rema - quoting ‘Yesh Omrim’ paskens that when the tallis is removed with intention of returning it, no new bracha is made. The Rema distinguishes between the tallis and the tefillin. In his opinion, removal of the tallis doesn’t imply ‘hesech hada’as’ in accordance with the psak of the Tur; Rava

nevertheless, made a new bracha on his tefillin. Why? The laws of tefillin dictate that it is absolutely forbidden to wear them in the bathroom and therefore their removal for those purposes constitutes an acute case of hesech ha’daas.

In line with the opinion of the Rema, the poskim tell us that if the tefillin are temporarily removed to visit the toilet, a new bracha is made. In the same situation, if the tallis is removed no new bracha is made.

A permanent removal of the tallis clearly constitutes hesech hada’as; if after its removal with the intention to put it away, it is returned, a new bracha is made. At times, however, we remove tallis and tefillin and later aren’t sure what we had intended. In the poskim’s words, this is called ‘stama’ and is typical of one rushing out of shul to a domestic emergency.

This is a halachic grey area; however, to help us uncover our true intention, certain indicators are provided by the poskim. If the tallis is removed in the middle of davening, the understanding is that since one is bound by halacha to return to the tefilla and to put the tallis back on, one need not make a new bracha. Additionally, the poskim hold somewhat surprisingly that if he is wearing a talis koton, then his mitzvah performance is pending as long as he hasn’t clearly indicated otherwise. If, however, the tallis is folded and returned to its bag, we conclude that the mitzvah has terminated.

An important clause needs to be added. Intending to continue the mitzvah after the interruption isn’t enough. In the opinion of Magen Avraham and the Mishna Brura, the intention needs to be for an immediate return. Additionally, even if the intentions were in order, if you subsequently got involved in other issues, you would need to make a new bracha. The definition of the term ‘immediate’ for this context is very unclear and is a matter of debate amongst contemporary poskim. Many have said that this is an unquantifiable term and simply means that you will return to the mitzvah as soon as the current disturbance has been dealt with.

What would you do if a phone call came, tefillin were removed, and then you decided that it wasn’t time to run out of shul? Does mistaken hesech hada’as count as a reason to make a new bracha? This issue needs to be dealt with by understanding the concept of hesech haa’as. Although an error, is grounds to undermine a positive enactment such as a neder, hesech hada’as is different. Nothing positive is being enacted; rather, the continuous state of engagement with the mitzvah has ceased

- this is true whether by accident or intentionally. So, once you have ceased involvement in the mitzvah, if shortly after you realise that you should have carried on, you need to make a new bracha.

Often at these times, we’re left without rabbinic assistance and are forced to resolve matters ourselves. At an early stage, it is worth bearing in mind the Mishna Brura’s advice - to have intention when making the bracha in the morning to cover later eventualities. In more general terms, I hope that these lines underscore the value of learning key halachos – allowing us room to make informed decisions, as issues arise.

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E

3. What are some of the mitzvos in Parshas Mishpatim that are relevant nowadays?

S P O N S O R E D

This page has been kindly sponsored by the

RACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST

PAR

SH

AHIS THERE A PLACE FOR

LOGIC IN TORAH?Rabbi Chaim Ozer MoszkowskiThe Jerusalem Kollel, headed by Harav Yitzchak Berkovits

4

The Midrash1 states that the mitzvos were given at dawn, while the mishpatim, laws, were given in the evening. This symbolises the symbiosis between Torah and laws2. Just as we cannot easily claim that dawn precedes evening or that evening precedes dawn, we cannot accord primacy to Torah or to mishpatim.

Clearly, the Midrash is treating mitzvos and mishpatim as subcategories of the Torah value system given to Moshe at Har Sinai. The Midrash does not, however, clarify the distinction between mitzvos and mishpatim. Indeed, the classical commentaries remain mysteriously silent about this distinction, even when both Torah (mitzvos) and mishpatim are written in the same verse3.

R’ Eliyahu Meir Bloch in his Sefer, Shiurei Da’as4 eloquently articulates one of the more sophisticated intellectual issues that confront serious Torah scholars. He points out that at one extreme the Torah often presents laws with details and distinctions that seem beyond the grasp of human intelligence. At the same time, we find many Torah laws that are tasteful and appealing to our common sense and to our logic-oriented minds. These two extremes seem to provide us with a mixed message: is human logic and common sense crucial to understand the significance of Torah laws, or are the fine details of the mitzvos that seem beyond our grasp, reflective of Hashem’s vision for unconditional service?

These two extremes, says R’ Bloch, spawn two faulty approaches to Torah study. Adherents of the first extreme refuse to acknowledge parallels between Torah and common sense; consequently, they are unable to decide any matter with certainty, since their intolerance of their subjectivity hinders their ability to trust their analysis. Certainty relies on one’s confidence in common sense. In contrast, adherents of the second extreme attempt to explain the entire Torah in terms of economics, law, sociology, etc.; however, they fail to adequately explain the fine distinctions that are so integral to Halacha. R’ Bloch names the second approach הגיון המשפטי, legal thought.

The correct approach to Torah study, taking into account the existence of both extremes, is a synthesis of appreciation for the Torah’s transcendence with awareness of its innate sensibility.

Just as mishpatim were given after the Torah, we cannot impose our preconceived legal schemata upon the corpus of Torah literature. However, just as night precedes dawn, we cannot ignore the crucial contribution of human logic and law towards our true understanding of Torah.

A second interpretation of this noticeable incongruence can be suggested based on the writings of R’ Shimon Shkop5. R’ Shimon is bothered by an apparent contradiction between two laws. On the one hand, we are instructed to act stringently when uncertainty arises regarding prohibitions of biblical origin6. However, we are also instructed to rule leniently in monetary matters. For example, when one litigant claims that he definitely owns the disputed object, and the second litigant says that he perhaps owns it, we award the object to its present holder even if he is the uncertain one. R’ Shimon asks if indeed the awardee is uncertain, shouldn’t the possibility of violating the biblical prohibition of theft mandate us to rule stringently and force him to cede the object to his opponent?

R’ Shimon suggests that “monetary mishpatim are unlike all the mitzvos of the Torah. Regarding all mitzvos, our main obligation is to fulfil the mitzvah. However, in monetary matters our obligation to fulfil the mitzvah is preceded by a legal obligation to clarify who legally deserves the money. Thus, our lenient rulings in monetary matters stem from their legal, rather than halachic, status. Once a person legally possesses an object, he cannot be Halachically treated as a thief, even if he is uncertain about his rights to that object.

There is a parallel between the ideas of R’ Eliyahu Meir Bloch and R’ Shimon Shkop. Both suggest that there is a synthesis between legal logic and the transcendence of the Torah. On the intellectual plane, R’ Bloch notes that certainty is linked to a logical appreciation of the Torah, while practically, R’ Shkop points out that halakhic laws are based on an already present legal status. Both agree, however, that the Torah is the primary determinant of our ultimate values. May we elevate our lives by synthesising Torah values in our real world!

1 Shemos Rabbah 30:11, based on Shemos 19:16 2. R’ Shlomo Kluger, in his introduction to Sefer

Mili d-Nezikin

2 See, for example, Bamidbar 15:16 and Devarim 17:11.

3 R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch, in Horeb, defines Torah as “fundamental principles relating to mental

and spiritual preparation for life,” and Mishpatim as “declarations of justice towards human

beings.”

4 Shiurei Da’as, vol. 1, p. 7

5 Shaarei Yosher 5:1

6 Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 1:5

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E 4. It brings at the end of the parsha that Moshe went up to the mountain for forty days and nights to receive the Torah. What is the significance of the number forty?

CONGREGATION OF JACOB SYNAGOGUE351-353 Commercial Road

London E1 2PS Phone no: 0207-790-2874

Please contact David Brandes if you would like to form a Minyan for Maariv Sunday till Thursday

and more on 07900-363277

The London Shiur GuideCalling weekly chaburas to be included

in our NW London Shiur Guide Please email information to mc@markittech.com

PAR

SH

AHTHE TORAH SHIURIM OF RABBI

FRANDRabbi Yissochor FrandMagid Shiur, Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Baltimore

5

A True FriendThe pasuk “If the ox of a man will gore his fellow man’s ox and it dies they will sell the live ox and split its value and also the dead (ox) shall be split.” [Shmos 21:35] is discussed at length in the beginning of Tractate Bava Kamma, along other laws involving damage to or by one’s property.

The expression at the beginning of this pasuk “v’ki yigof shor ish es shor re’eyhu...” is normally translated “When a man’s ox will gore his friend’s ox”. However, the Ibn Ezra quotes an interpretation from a certain ‘Ben Zuta’ who offers an alternate translation. Ben Zuta claims that the words “shor re’eyhu” mean the “fellow ox” of the ox who is doing the goring. It is not to be translated as “the ox of his friend” as we commonly translate but rather “the ox gores his friend” – another ox!

The Ibn Ezra minces no words in dismissing the interpretation of Ben Zuta. In his inimitable style he writes “the ox has no ‘friend’ other than Ben Zuta himself!” In other words anyone who says such an interpretation is a worthy companion to an ox and has no place in the Study Hall.

The concept of friendship and the concept of “re’yah” [friend] as in “v’ahavta l’re’yahcha kamocha” [you should love your friend as yourself], only applies to human beings. Friendship is an emotional relationship that reflects an aspect of humanity. Animals can have companions and they can even have mates. But the whole concept of friendship is not applicable to them. Therefore, the Ibn Ezra dismisses the interpretation of Ben Zuta: Do not talk about “friends of animals” – there is no such thing.

Rav Hutner, zt”l, makes the following very interesting observation: The word “re’ya,” which is one of several ways of saying “friend” in Hebrew comes from the same root as the word “teruah” as in “It shall be a day of teruah [blasting] for you” [Bamidbar 29:1] (referring to Rosh HaShannah). The Targum Unkelos on this pasuk translates “yom teruah” as “yom yevava”.

“Yom yevava” means a day of moaning, or a day of broken up cries.

That is why the main thrust of the shofar sound is the “shevarim” (the broken wailing sound). There is a question in Halacha as to whether the true shevarim is the three short sounds we call shevarim or the series of shorter blasts that we call teruah or a

combination of both, but whatever its nature, the “shevarim” is the essence of the shofar blowing. The single blast sound (tekiah) that proceeds and follows the “shevarim” merely provides a frame, so to speak, to highlight the essence of the shofar sound – the sobbing cry of shevarim.

Thus, the etymology of teruah, sharing the same root as re’yus [friendship] has the connotation of breaking something up. Rav Hutner says that is why a friend is called re’yah – the purpose of a friend is to “break you up” and to “give you chastisement”. A true friend should stop us in our tracks and sets us on the right path, when necessary. A friend is not the type of person who always pats us on the back and tells us how great we are, always condoning whatever we do. The purpose of a friend (re’yah), as is the purpose of teruah (shofar blast), is to tell us – sometimes –

“you don’t know what you are talking about!”

Obviously, there has to be an overall positive relationship. Someone who is always critical will not remain a friend for very long. A person needs to have a modicum of trust and confidence in someone before he is prepared to hear criticism from him. But the fellow who always slaps us on the back and tells us how great we are is likewise not a true friend. A true friend must be able to stop us and sometimes be able to break us.

In one of the blessings of sheva brachos, we make reference to the newlywed couple as being “re’yim ahuvim” [loving friends]. There is a message behind this expression. In order for a chosson and kallah to be “loving friends,” they need to have the capacity to be able to say to each other “this is not the way to do it; this is not the way to act”.

Obviously, a relationship in which this is the entire basis of their interaction is not going to flourish, to say the least. But – if one is deserving of it – the type of wife a person will find will be one who will be a “re’yah ahuva” in the full sense of the word “re’yah”. Similarly, the Netziv says on the pasuk, “A helpmate, opposite him” [Bereshis 2:18] that sometimes in order for a person to be a helper (ezer), the person needs to be an opponent (k’negdo).

This is why no ox ever has a “re’yah”. No ox will ever tell its companion ox “It is not right to eat like that” or “You are eating too much” or “You are eating too fast.” A true friend needs to do that.

May we all merit having such true friendship between ourselves and our companions and between ourselves and our spouses.

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E 5. (22:17) We are commanded to execute a sorcerer. Is there really such a power as sorcery?

נא להתפלל עבור

דוד יהושוע נתנאל בן צירללרפואה שלמה בקרוב בתוך שאר חולי ישראל

נא להתפלל עבור

יהודה בן יענט ~ אלכסנדר דוד בן לאהלרפואה שלמה בקרוב בתוך שאר חולי ישראל

PAR

SH

AHPARSHAS MISHPATIM

Ben RosenfelderBeis Hamedrash Ohel Moshe

6

וכי יפתח איש בורIf a man opens a pit and an ox .. falls

Included in the definition of בור are any stumbling blocks in a public domain. The Gemara in Bava Kama relates a story of a man who was removing boulders from his field and depositing them rather carelessly in the public domain. A wise man approached him and asked him enigmatically “Why are you throwing boulders from a place which isn’t yours to a place which is?”

And indeed it wasn’t long before the man’s financial situation deteriorated and he was forced to sell his field. Not long afterwards he found himself walking along that very path that passed by his former field and tripped over those very same boulders. At that moment he understood the wise words of that man.

We often think we can rid our lives of certain difficulties or inconveniences by unscrupulously depositing them elsewhere

– only setting ourselves up with traps in the world to come – which is our true and everlasting possession. We should heed the warning of the wise man and focus on our long term benefit and avoid the short-sightedness that is a feature of our temporary world.

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף ..וגנב מבית האיש..ונקרב בעל הבית..

The Torah is telling us about a person with whom something is deposited in good faith but he claims – falsely it turns out, that it was stolen when really he has misappropriated it.

If we look carefully the Torah changes the way it refers to this person three times from רעהו friend to – האיש the man and finally to בעל הבית the “Baal Habayis – the homeowner”.

We can see how this person’s relationship has deteriorated from a position of trust to one of deceit. At first he is described as – a friend, a trusted friend. Then he is referred to simply as a man. No relationship – a distance – he has taken camaraderie out of the picture to assuage his conscience about the disloyalty he is guilty of. And finally he is the baal habayis – the boss. It’s all mine – why should he be entitled to this and not me.

This is how things can deteriorate between friends – it is a process that begins with distance and depersonalisation and ends with egotistical self centeredness.

And if we want this to be reversed – to rebuild a trusting and caring society we need to work on empathy – feeling for others and taking ourselves out of the centre.

אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העניIf one lends money to my people, the poor man..

Rashi points out that lending money to the poor is an obligation and the word אם which normally means “if” must mean when ie when you lend.

There are 2 other occasions where the word אם – “if” is used when really it means “when”– because it is a tzivui – an obligation. They are:

when you build a stone alter in the Beis – ואם מזבח אבנים •Hamikdash.

ביכורים • מנחת תקרב when you bring a bikurim meal – אם offering.

All these are obligations.

Why does the Torah use the lashon of אם rather than just accurately saying כאשר – when?

Says Rav Moshe Feinstein in Darash Moshe – that this teaches us that in these areas it is not sufficient to carry them out purely because we are commanded – we need to do them as if they are voluntary – from our own volition.

For these aspects of Avodas Hashem – the heart is crucial.

helping the poor and less fortunate and able – אם כסף תלוה

Bringing the first produce to Hashem. Recognizing – ביכוריםand being humbled and truly grateful for the many gifts that Hashem has bestowed upon us.

The construction of the permanent stone mizbeach. The role of the mizbeach – on which we are to korbanos – from the root of kirva –closeness – is to allow us to develop a relationship with Hashem.

Being willing to sacrifice for Him with our material possessions in the form of קרבנות is a fundamental part of that relationship. No relationship can be formed without being willing to give of oneself – willingly and happily.

When it comes to the feelings with which these 3 mitzvos are to be undertaken it is self evident that doing them purely because they are a command without feeling empathy for others, heartfelt gratitude and the desire to draw close to Hashem renders these acts sorely lacking. They are indeed calculated to engender these essential feelings within us.

PLEASE TRY TO LIGHT SHABBOS CANDLES 5 MINUTES EARLY THIS WEEK

??livingwithmitzvos.comQ

UIZ

TIM

E

6. (23:8) A judge must not take a bribe. What is so terrible about it?

Supports young children by providing an early intervention plan, which meets the developmental & educational needs of children failing to thrive and succeed at school.

www.legadel.org.ukGiving 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

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

PAR

SH

AHMATTEH MOSHEC

Rabbi Gideon SchulmanRosh Chabura UK, Keter HaTorah

7

Matteh Moshe – The staff or The Rod of Moshe plays a significant and influential role in the narrative of the process of redemption in many ways. In numerous pesukim the Torah refers to the staff of Moshe or indeed the staff of Aharon as well. So for example when Moshe encounters the burning bush and enters into his first dialogue with Hashem where he is told to throw his staff to the ground. The staff then turns into a snake, he grabs onto its tail as Hashem instructs him to do and it returns to its former state. The same staff later on is turned into a Tannin, which according to Rashi was also a snake.

Moshe is commanded to take this staff with him on his mission to

redeem Am Yisrael. The pesukim go out of their way to mention the

staff. What is this staff and what is its importance? And what lesson

do we learn from it?

In Pirkei Avos we are taught that ten things were created on the eve

of Shabbos at dusk, one of them is the matteh, the staff. In general

when Chazal use the term bein hashmashos (dusk) this refers to an

item with a unique spiritual power. This is because on one hand it

belongs to the holy seventh day and is above nature but on the other

hand it is still rooted in the sixth day of creation and the physical

world.

In the Hagaddah, famously there is a dispute between Rabbi

Yehuda and the Sages regarding the acronym detzach adash be

achav. The source of this is in regards to what exactly appeared on

the staff. If it were the ten plagues, did they appear as an acronym

or in their full form.

According to the Yalkut (Yalkut Shimoni 4:247), it was the same

staff that was given to Adam HaRishon on the eve of the first Shabbos

of Creation. This same staff was then passed onto Chanoch who in

turn passed it onto Shem. Shem gave it over to Avraham who in turn

passed it to Yitzchak and Yaakov. Yaakov then handed it to Yosef.

If so, the staff was handed over to the leader of each generation to

harness the power and strength symbolised by the staff being above

or ruling over nature. After Yosef passed away, Pharaoh takes this

staff to his Palace where one of his magician-advisers by the name

of Yisro, Moshe’s future father in law and high priest of Midyan,

recognised its unique powers and took it for himself.

When he left Egypt he took the staff with him to Midyan and

planted it in his garden. The Midrash goes on to relate an episode

where no man could approach the staff. When Moshe is invited into

Yisro’s home he sees the staff and not only approaches it, but after

reading the etchings on it, reaches out and takes hold of it. It was

this action of Moshe showing his mastery and his connection and

belonging to the realms above nature that made Yisro realise that

this is the redeemer of the Jews and he gives his daughter Tzipporah

to him as a wife.

It is with this staff that Moshe shepherds the flock of Yisro and it

is with this staff that Moshe encounters the fiery bush and it is with

this staff that the plagues are brought about and the redemption is

realised.

At his first encounter with Hashem the staff is turned into a snake.

What is so special about the snake, why not change it into a monkey

or and elephant or even a donkey? The difference between the staff

and the snake is that the snake bends but the staff is always straight.

The Kingdom of Egypt is associated with the snake because they had

the nature of the devious snake. They were anything but straight*.

Our sages call the book of Bereishis the narrative of our forefathers,

sefer hayashar yesharim. The Book of those who are straight before

Hashem. The patriarchs were called yesharim, because they tried

to correct not only themselves, but also their environments and the

world.

The Jew must always face Hashem as a staff, walking before G-d

on a straight path as set out by the word of Hashem. The staff teaches

us so much but the lesson of being yashar is to be seen as essential

to all that the Torah teaches and stands for.

*I have chosen to translate the word yashar as straight, even though

it does not necessarily describe the intent and meaning associated

by Chazal to this word. I did this because there is no English word to

describe the ethical, moral Torah based behaviour and faith that this

word denotes.

Please could you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home -as there have been few left in shuls.

This newsletter contains Divrei Torah and may contain Sheimos - please dispose of accordingly.

PAR

SH

AHINSIGHTS IN RASHI – THE CORRECT

APPROACH TO MISHPATIMRabbi Yehonasan GefenRabbi for Keter HaTorah

8

1. Seder Nezikim that deals with damages between people.

2. On the second day of Chol Hamoed Pesach. This is the first time it mentions in the Torah the three festivals.

3. Not to hit parents; to judge the four different types of people who guards things; not to cause any

pain to any converts; to cease working on Shabbos; to judge a thief or damages done to people; to lend a poor man money; not to be involved in interest on loans; to help someone unload an overloaded burden; not to take bribery; not to cook milk and meat together.

4. The number forty symbols spiritual change. This is seen here, the acceptance of the spiritual Torah. The mikva that provides spiritual cleansing must contain forty so’oh. The time for spiritual teshuva takes place over forty days from Rosh Chodesh Elul until Yom Kippur.

5. The Rambam holds that magic is mere imagery while the Ramban holds that there is such a power as magic.

6. It makes a person one with the other party meaning that subconsciously they will always side with that party.

Shemos, 21:1: “And these are the laws that you shall place before them.”

Rashi, 21:1: sv. And these are the laws: “Whenever it says, ‘these’, it excludes what came before; [when it says] ‘and these’ it comes to add on what came before; Just as what came before was from Sinai, so too these were from Sinai: And why was the section of monetary laws connected to the section about the Altar? To tell you that you should put a Sanhedrin next to the Temple.”

Parshas Mishpatim largely discusses monetary and civil laws – Rashi writes that with the words, ‘and these’, the Torah connects the contents of the Parsha to the giving of the Torah in the previous parsha. It comes to teach that just like the Ten Commandments were given at Mount Sinai, so too, the mishpatim1 of the parsha were also given at Mount Sinai. The obvious question is, why does the Torah need to stress that, of all the mitzvos, the mishpatim in particular, were given at Sinai? Indeed, we know that the whole Torah was given at Sinai2, so why the need to stress that the mishpatim were given?

In order to answer this it is important to understand the different way in which people view the laws that are bein adam leMakom, as opposed to those which are in the category of bein adam lechaveiro3. There can be a tendency to view the laws that are bein adam leMakom as deriving from a Divine source. However, laws that are bein adam lechaveiro4, such as monetary and civil laws, derive from human intellect. Indeed, every society, no matter what its relgious beliefs, institutes such laws in order to maintain a functioning society. Accordingly, the Torah deemed it essential to emphasise that just like the Ten Commandments derive purely from the Divine wisdom, so too do the monetary and civil laws derive purely from the same source, even if they often accord with human logic.

This lesson is also alluded to in the second part of Rashi, where he derives that the Sanhedrin5 must be next to the Temple. The Sanhedrin adjudicates all the major monetary and civil disputes that arise. The Torah is coming to stress that monetary laws belong in the realm of spirituality just as much as the laws related to the Temple.

The question remains, why is this such an important lesson that the Torah makes two allusions to it in the first word of the parsha? It seems that if a person views the monetary and civil laws in a different way from the bein adam leMakom mitzvos,

1 The term Mishpatim generally refers to Monetary and Civil laws.2 Brachos, 5a.3 Translated as ‘between man and G-d’ (Makom is one of G-d’s names). This

refers to laws such as prayer, the laws of kosher food, and the laws of family purity.

4 Translated as ‘between man his friend’. 5 The Highest Jewish court that was extant in Temple times..

then it will have a major influence in how he conducts himself in these areas. The first result of this attitude is that he may act with considerable yiras Shamayim (fear of Heaven) in the more directly ‘G-d related’ mitzvos such as Shabbos and Kashrus. This is manifest in his willingness to learn about this all-important mitzvos, and to ask for halachic guidance when there is any matter of doubt. However, when it comes to monetary questions, it is far less common for someone to adopt the same approach. A person may, at least subconsciously, view such questions as being outside the purview of the Torah. The outgrowth of this is that he will not work on this aspect of his avodas HaShem (Divine Service) with the same efforts as other areas. In this vein, one well-known Halachic authority testified that he is rarely asked questions about monetary and civil laws in comparison to other areas of Jewish law.

Rashi, in his two comments shows that this approach is highly flawed – in essence a person should approach mishpatim in the exact same way as he approaches all other areas of Torah. The Rabbi who reminded us of this more than anyone in recent generations was Rav Yisrael Salanter zt”l. Indeed, his great student, the Alter of Kelm zt”l, testified: “Our master, of blessed memory, lit up the eyes of the exile with his investigation and knowledge in the laws of money, theft, and damages. In this he was unique in these generations.”6 This is a particularly striking statement, as Rav Yisrael was most well-known for initiating a whole new movement – that of the concept of learning Mussar. Yet, the Alter stressed Rav Yisrael’s uniqueness in his emphasis on the monetary laws.

Even within his Mussar approach, he stressed working on honesty in the same way as working on other areas of spiritual growth. One erev Yom Kippur, he spent six hours straight learning with tremendous fervor, the saying of Chazal: “Out of a bagful of sins, theft is first to accuse.”7 He did this because he recognized that a person cannot be a true eved HaShem if he only works on such areas as Torah learning, prayer and Shabbos observance. Of course, they are essential to one’s avoda, but if a person excels in such areas, yet at the same time, is lax with regard to other people’s money or property, then he is sorely lacking.

As is often the case, the first step in improving in this vital aspect realm is learning the laws and hashkafa (outlook) that relate to it – this includes respect for other people’s property, carefulness in guarding borrowed items, honesty in monetary matters, and avoiding any hint of theft. In this way, a person can come to develop a heightened awareness of this vital part of the Torah.

6 Sparks of Mussar, Rav Chaim Ephraim Zaitchik, p.32.7 Ibid.

A

NSW

ERS

Number 7

Riddle Answer

From Parshas Vayikra the Oneg will be available via email ONLY

Join the global mailing list by emailing mc@markittech.com