Tetzaveh

Tetzaveh, 8 Adar I 5774

Israel and the Olive

Harav Shaul Yisraeli – based on Siach Shaul, p. 281 Our parasha begins with an introduction of the use of olive oil for lighting the menora in the Mishkan. The midrash

(Shemot Rabba 36:1) describes the symbolism of the oil-producing olive as follows: “Just as the olive is smashed and ground … and only afterward it produces oil, so too Israel is hit by the nations of the world, pushed from place to place, tied up in chains, … and only afterward they return to a path of repentance.”

Not all fruit “agree” to give oil when they are smashed and pressed. In some cases, hitting them just ruins their appearance. So too there are people and nations who do not agree to learn the lesson from afflictions. Sometimes afflictions cause people to become despondent and stop functioning. Iyov, for example, arrived at heretical conclusions due to his afflictions, claiming that “there is no judge and no judgment.” He turned from Iyov to oyeiv [a play on the words with one being the name Job and the other meaning enemy].

The truth is that this matter of reacting to affliction is the subject of a great deal of Torah, and such a mass of material is not acquired while standing on one leg or with the wave of a hand. Torah needs to be studied. It needs to be studied deeply, and it is a unique quality of Israel to be able to do. “Praiseworthy is the one who You, Hashem, afflict, and from Your Torah You will teach him” (Tehillim 94:12).

“You are indeed beautiful, my friend; you are indeed beautiful; your eyes are like doves” (Shir Hashirim 1:15). The Tanchuma (Tetzaveh 1) on our parasha expounds as follows. “You are beautiful – in the house; you are beautiful – in the field.” The house refers to the doorposts on which the mezuzot are placed. The field refers to the terumot and ma’asrot we give. “Your eyes are like doves – when other birds are slaughtered, they struggle; the dove does not do this, but stretches out its neck. So too only Israel is willing to give its life for Hashem … Hashem said to them: “You are like the dove; just as the dove gave light to the world (relating to its part in the end of the flood, bringing the olive twig to the ark), so too you are like the dove. You bring olive oil and light it before me, as the pasuk says: “You shall command Bnei Yisrael and they will take to you olive oil …” (Shemot 27:20).”

Refuah Sheleimah amongst the sick of Klal Yisrael for Rabanit Itah bat Chana Ehrenreich & Mr. Eliyahu ben Sara Zelda Carm el & Mrs. Racheli bat Rozi Bouskila

Hemdat Yamim is dedicated in memory of

Shmuel Rozenhak o.b.m

who passed away Iyar 6, 5773

This edition of Hemdat Yamim

is dedicated to the memory of

R' Meir ben Yechezkel

Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m

Hemdat Yamim is endowed by

Les & Ethel Sutker of Chicago, Illinois in loving memory of

Max and Mary Sutker and

Louis and Lillian Klein , z”l

Tetzaveh

by Rav Daniel Mann Keeping Benefits from a Communal Purchase Question : I was asked to buy an air conditioning system (for several thousand shekels) for my beit knesset. I received money to put in my account and ordered it with my credit card. A few weeks later, I received a 500 shekel gift certificate (in my name) for purchases at a certain outlet. Must I pass on the benefit to the beit knesset? Answer : The question of who gains when a shaliach (agent) who, in buying something for his meshaleiach, receives a special deal, is discussed in the gemara (Ketubot 98b). The basic rule is that when the commodity does not have a set price, we treat the good price or extra quantity received as part of the purchase, which goes to the meshaleiach. If there is a set price and the purchase ended up being out of the norm, the extras are split between the shaliach and the meshaleiach.

Before categorizing your case in this regard, we must discuss the logic behind the gemara’s ruling. Rashi (ad loc.) says that the profits are shared in the latter case because while we view the special rate as a present, we do not know who the intended recipient is, so we split it between the two parties out of doubt. The Rif (ad loc.; see Ran ad loc. and Beit Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 183) says that we objectively view the benefit as being joint between the two people responsible for the profitable transaction. The shaliach is the one who was given the “present.” On the other hand, the meshaleiach’s money and request to buy were the trigger for the “present.” The Hagahot Oshri (to Rosh, Ketubot 11:15) explains that the good fortune that brought about this profit is naturally attributable to the shaliach and the meshaleiach, and so they split the profits.

Later poskim discuss variations of the case which depend upon the rationale behind the rule. The Ran (on the Rif ibid.) says that if the seller said explicitly that the special rate was due to the shaliach, Rashi would award the gain to the shaliach, whereas the Rif would say the meshaleiach still gets half for his critical role in the whole process. Rashi’s logic would also not apply to a case where the extra came from the seller’s mistake (of the type that does not require return), whereas it would be less clear who would deserve the extra according to the Rif; the matter of good fortune certainly applies (see K’tzot Hachoshen 183:8). The Shulchan Aruch (CM 183:6) seems to hold like the Rif, which is the preference of the Shach and Taz (ad loc.) whereas the Rama (ad loc.) accepts Rashi. The major poskim do not follow the Hagahot Oshri.

The application of these rules to your case depends on certain factors you did not mention. If the company clearly advertises the gift certificate along with this item or large purchases in general, then it would seem that you do not deserve any part of it. That is because the gift certificate is not a special present but part and parcel of the transaction. Just as if there is a 20% sale on a certain day, you would not claim the reduction for yourself, the same is true for another set benefit. If the matter were a discretionary decision of the store with no known reason, then it would be similar to the present which is subject to the 50-50 split. If you were entered into a lottery of buyers and your name was selected, then according to Rashi you should pass on the profit because there was no intention to give it to you, and profits from the sale naturally go to the buyer. According to the Hagahot Oshri, you are part of the good fortune; one can argue what the Rif would say in that case.

Since it is important to be beyond reproach and suspicion in dealings with community needs (see Tzedaka U’Mishpat 7:7), we suggest discussing the matter with the powers that be in the beit knesset. Even though the strict law is similar to that regarding standard monetary rights (see Noda B’yehuda II, Yoreh Deah 155), you must make sure there will be no conflict. You can share the pertinent elements of our presentation to help you come to an agreement.

Contact us at info@eretzhemdah.org Have a question?..... E-mail us at

info@eretzhemdah.org

Tetzaveh

Adjusting One’s Lot According to His Attitude (condensed from Ein Ayah, Pei’ah 9:5-6) Gemara: Whoever does not need to receive tzedaka and yet he collects does not leave the world until he needs the help of others. And whoever needs to receive tzedaka and does not agree to receive it will not die of old age until he helps support others, as the pasuk says: “Blessed is the person who relies upon Hashem and Hashem is his source of security” (Yirmiya 17:7) Ein Ayah : Poverty is very needed for humankind, and like other needs of society, Divine Providence sees to it that there are individuals who provide this “commodity” for society. It is very difficult for people to bear the burden of poverty, but this is still the divine decree that people will have to put up with, just as in wartime there are individuals who have to personally pay the “tax” of mortalities that are “levied’ on each nation.

If it is at all possible, Divine Providence will arrange that some of those who are most able to accept the situation of poverty with relatively less severe difficulty will be the ones who are impoverished so that there will be less pain in the world. There are two difficult parts to poverty: the objective challenges of physical deprivation; and the impact on the soul of someone with human pride having to accept donations from others and feeling he is a burden on society. Only one whose spirit is lowly will ask for handouts, which is degrading for most people, when he does not even need it. Apparently such a person is not bothered much by the embarrassment of asking for donations. If so, there is less loss if he has a real need to ask for money in comparison to this happening to a sensitive soul. Therefore, Hashem is likely to arrange for the person who has demonstrated he is not bothered by receiving handouts to actually need to receive them.

In the opposite direction, one who has such a sensitive soul that the emotional element of poverty outweighs the difficulty of being in need, so that he does not ask for a hand-out even when he needs it, is deserving of being in the situation where he has what to give to others. That is because one who is so reluctant to receive from others will be more appreciative of the reward of giving to others. Still sometimes it is necessary for such a sensitive person to experience poverty himself, for example because he may have a nature whereby wealth can cause him to stray from the path of purity. However, when he gets older and reaches an age where his personality changes and he becomes less swayed by the material pleasures and the excitement of possession, the situation changes. He becomes more interested in doing good, as is the divine way, and he is more dependent on Hashem. That is why the pasuk brought to describe such a person is “Hashem will be his source of security.”

Tetzaveh

Stealing a Field and Eating its Fruit (based around Shut HaRosh 95:1)

Case: Reuven claimed that Shimon stole his vineyard and ate its fruit during the course of two years and also caused damage to the field by working it improperly. Reuven demands compensation; Shimon denies the story.

Ruling : If Reuven does not have witnesses, Shimon can swear and will be exempt from payment. If Reuven has

witnesses, Shimon has to pay the value of the grapes at the time of harvest as estimated by Shimon with an oath. He

does not have to pay for the devaluation of the field because of the rule that the laws of theft do not apply to fields.

That which the querier asked that one who stole the field should not have to pay for the grapes, just as one who grabbed another person’s boat in order to steal it does not have to pay for the use of the boat when it is returned (Bava Kama 97a) is making a faulty comparison. The halachot are totally different in regard to movable objects (including a boat) and land. When one steals a movable object and makes a change in it, he acquires halachic control over it and therefore whatever benefit he receives from it is his own. One example is that if one stole wood and made utensils out of them, he has to pay the original owner only according to the value of the wood at the time of the theft (ibid. 93b).

In regard to stolen land, since the land is not halachically considered to be stolen, it is always in the possession of the original owner. As a result, if during the time it was practically controlled by the thief it was damaged by a flood, the thief can just leave the field and tell the owner, “Your field is before you” and not pay for the devaluation (ibid. 117b). This distinction has a negative ramification for the thief as well. The fruit that grow are the fruit of the original owner. Therefore, every year of the theft, when he harvested them, he was harvesting the owner’s fruit and must pay for them according to the time of the harvesting/theft of the fruit. Similarly, if he stole another person’s slaves he has to pay their owner the value of the work of the slaves.

We can prove that this distinction is true from the gemara’s discussion of the status of slaves – whether they are compared to land (as we rule) or to movable objects. The gemara (Bava Kama 97a) cites a statement that if one grabs someone’s slave and works him, he is exempt from paying, and the gemara concludes from that source that the status of a slave must be like that of a movable object. In other words, if it were like land, he would have to pay for the work.

Thus, the answers to both questions are based on the same premise. The field is not stolen, and therefore the thief is not obligated to pay for depreciation, but the fruit that grow in it belong to the owner. One who stole the fruit has to pay the owner as one who stole movable objects (which they are after the harvesting).

Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist

philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to

Jewish communities worldwide.