Vayikra

Vayikra, 6 Adar II 5774

Fortunate is the Generation …

Harav Yosef Carmel In discussing the korban brought by a leader who accidentally sinned, the Torah writes “asher nasi yecheta”

(Vayikra 4:22). Rashi quotes a memorable statement of Chazal in this context: “Ashrei (fortunate) is the generation whose leader takes note to bring atonement for his unintentional sins, all the more so that he regrets his intentional sins.”

We have discussed in the past that the people of the nation have the authority to depose even a king who was anointed by a prophet and was previously accepted by the nation. But in light of Rashi’s comments, let us discuss the question of what justifies changing leadership under unscheduled circumstances.

Chazal deal with the matter in the context of an apparent contradiction regarding the chronology of David’s reign. On the one hand, the p’sukim say that David was king for seven years and six months in Chevron and another thirty-three years in Yerushalayim, while in total he is described as reigning for only forty years without mentioning six months (Shmuel II, 5:4-5). The answer (Yoma 22b) is that six months were taken away from his reign, during which time he had leprosy, was abandoned by the Sanhedrin, and lost the Divine Spirit. We know that a leper is equated to one who has died (Shemot Rabba 1). Sanhedrin is needed for some of a king’s actions, including declaring certain types of war, and the loss of the Divine Spirit shows that he lost some of Hashem’s support, which is so crucial for making correct decisions.

What did David do to have his leadership questioned in the midst of such a successful tenure? Rav (Yoma 22b) said that it was because of his sin involving Bat Sheva and her husband, Uriyah. We see that sins in the realm of adultery (without getting into a discussion of the extent to which Batsheva was a married woman, which is the subject of different opinions in Chazal), immoral behavior which causes chillul Hashem is grounds for having the kingship taken away. In contrast, we do not find sins between man and Hashem as grounds for removal from the throne, as the Yerushalmi (Horiyot 3:2) says that the Kingdom of Israel was as legitimate as that of Yehuda, despite the fact that the former were involved in the worship at the calf monuments in Beit El and Dan and several kings worshipped idols.

Another opinion (Yerushalmi, Rosh Hashana 1:1) points to the six months in which David’s forces were involved in a siege on Ammon, despite the Torah’s warning not to engage in warfare with them (Devarim 2:19). According to this opinion (Rav Dimi in Bava Batra 21b disagrees), unauthorized and non-halachic use of Israel’s military might compromise the legitimacy of the king’s reign.

Let us pray that modern Israel’s political leadership will prove to be fit for its task. Even if its leaders err (and which person does not err), may they know how to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Then it can be said about us, “Fortunate is the generation …”

Refuah Sheleimah amongst the sick of Klal Yisrael for

Mr. Eliyahu ben Sara Zelda Carmel & Mrs. Racheli bat Ro zi Bouskila

Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of

Gershon (George ) ben

Chayim HaCohen Kaplan o.b.m

Rabbi Yosef Mordechai Simcha ben Bina Stern

o.b.m who passed away 21 Adar I, 5774

Yehudah ben Naftali Hertz Cohen (Kamofsky)

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 & Louis and Lillian Klein , z”l

Vayikra

by Rav Daniel Mann Use of Food from School Events [Below are two similar questions we received orally within 12 hours of each other from people who are very careful about other people’s money, as we encourage.] Question 1 : My yeshiva entrusted me (a kollel student) to arrange an oneg Shabbat for the talmidim. I was to responsibly buy refreshments and be reimbursed based on receipts. There is a significant amount of leftover food, some of it in open packages and some untouched. Can I or other participants use that food, or should I give it to the yeshiva. If keep it, may I ask full reimbursement of the purchases? Answer 1 : There are a few models to the possible nature of your arrangement with the yeshiva, which would impact elements like the ones you ask about.

You could have been serving as an agent (shaliach), buying food on the yeshiva’s behalf. If so, they have to reimburse you in full for what you bought as their agent, and the food is theirs. Then you would have to determine whether they allow you to eat their food after the time during which they clearly gave permission (during the oneg). One may assume they would be happy that you finish small amounts from open packages. Regarding the rest, it likely depends on various factors, including the management style of the yeshiva and the extent to which it is worthwhile for them to store the food until the next event. Even in cases where one is confident the owner of an object would be happy with a friend taking his object, there is an unresolved machloket whether it is permitted (Shach 359:5) or forbidden (Tosafot, Bava Metzia 22a) to do so (see Living the Halachic Process vol. II, J-2, where we preferred refraining from use).

Another possibility is that you bought the food for yourself with a promise of compensation. If that is the case, the food is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it. However, it raises a different question: how much compensation can you ask from the yeshiva? If you do not take the food for yourself, then they probably have to compensate you for all you bought and cannot require you to use that which was not eaten at the oneg on your account. However, leftovers that you do want to use turn out to be things that you did not spend on the group, and it does not seem that you should ask for compensation for them. On the other hand, the value to you of the leftovers (certainly the open packages, but likely even some closed packages) may be less than the amount you paid in the store. Therefore, you would not have to reduce the full face value from your request of a refund.

We encourage stringency on matters of monetary ethics. The wisest stringency is often to raise the issue with the relevant authorities with a smile, hakarat hatov, and willingness to pay or forego, respectively. In cases of good relations and only a few shekels at stake, each side is usually generous. Asking permission not only removes a question of impropriety but likely gets the best deal in the present and builds trust for the future. Question 2 : I am a teacher who received 500 shekels to spend on a party for a group of my students. I am clearly expected to keep the leftovers. The generous budget enabled me to buy more expensive vegetables than I would not normally buy for myself. After further planning, I think a different salad will be more appropriate, which would make the expensive vegetables unnecessary. If I decide to not use them, I should “buy them” from the school, but they are not worth their cost to me. What should I do? Answer 2 : While the school might allow it, it is not so nice to ask the school to pay money for something that its students did not benefit from at all. On the other hand, you acted with good intentions, and there is no reason for you to lose money trying to do the nicest thing for your students and being honest. Sometimes “practical advice” augments halachic advice importantly. We suggest that you make the expensive salad even if you now think that you have a better idea. I am sure it will be fine, and it is worth it to avoid the moral dilemma.

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

info@eretzhemdah.org

Vayikra

Don’t Forget to Feel Good About your Mitzvot (condensed from Ein Ayah, Maaser Ani 15) Mishna : At Mincha of the last day [of Pesach], they would make a declaration [lit., an admission]. What was the declaration? “I removed the sacred from the house” – this is ma’aser sheni and neta revay – “I have given it to the levi” – this is the ma’aser given to the levi – “and I have also given it” – this is teruma and terumat ma’aser – “to the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow” – this is ma’aser ani, leket, sikcha, and pei’ah, even though [not doing so] is not an impediment – “from the house” – this is challa. Ein Ayah : It is true that the greatness of a person’s obligation in the service of Hashem has to be engrained in him. He must have holy actions and paths. He must straighten his thoughts and attributes very clearly until he realizes the great unlikelihood that even his greatest efforts to pursue goodness and righteousness will enable him to fulfill his obligations fully. Therefore, the righteous view themselves as incomplete and possess a special type of humility.

However, this trait of lack of satisfaction in one’s righteousness should not have too much impact on a person to the extent that it steals his tranquility and happiness and thereby diminishes his intellect, Torah knowledge, and every good attribute. Therefore, the Torah provided a reminder that a person must feel satisfaction and even verbalize that he has done good things. This realization strengthens the emotion he puts into his service of Hashem, making it proper to have satisfaction and joy when he has fulfilled his obligations and not always view himself as lacking. Just as the soul benefits greatly when one admits his sins, so is there value in declaring his mitzvot.

Admittedly, one’s self-critical declarations should exceed those of self-credit, to avoid a tendency toward laziness. That is why the Torah set a declaration that accompanies the mitzvot of separating and giving certain obligatory contributions. These mitzvot encompass all six categories of obligations of the Torah and the intellect: negative mitzvot, positive mitzvot, mitzvot of the community, mitzvot of the individual, mitzvot between man and Hashem, and mitzvot between man and his fellow man.

Being careful not to eat tevel is an example of a negative commandment. The separation of tithes, the calling of the name of each, and the giving of each to its proper recipient are positive mitzvot. The specific mitzva to give the gifts is a mitzva of the individual, whereas the general idea of sustaining the kohanim so that they can lead the service of Hashem and teach Torah is a mitzva of the community. Considering the recipients’ rights to their portions is a mitzva between man and his fellow man. The concept of teruma’s sanctity and the need to remove the prohibition from the tevel are examples of mitzvot between man and Hashem.

Thus, properly adhering to the many obligations of special donations encompasses the gamut of man’s obligations to man. Therefore, the mitzva to make a declaration upon completing these mitzvot correctly reminds us of the general principle that we should not exaggerate our harsh outlook on our own spiritual achievements. Rather we should view ourselves honestly with open eyes and knowledge of how to be happy in our heart when we have done good deeds. Then we can look for our shortcomings and act strongly to fix them, with the help of the impetus created by the contrast between our happiness from achievement and disappointment from moral failure.

Therefore, we need declarations of mitzva fulfillment along with declarations of sin and healthy measures of straightness and modesty. One’s feeling of modesty should make him reluctant to announce his achievements. That is why he makes the declaration at the last possible moment, at the end of the last day of the holiday. This demonstrates that he is declaring his goodness only to fulfill the obligation with which Hashem presented him.

Vayikra

Responsibility for a Missing Diamond (based around Igrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat I:32)

A beit din conferred with Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding the case of Shimon who borrowed Reuven’s diamond to

see if he could interest a buyer, and if he was not interested, he would promptly return it. Reuven had to leave for an hour and so told Shimon to leave the diamond with Levi, from whom he would retrieve it upon return. Shimon gave a sealed envelope to Levi with the explanation of what was asked of him, and Levi put the envelope in a safe with his own diamonds. Four days later, Reuven and Shimon came to claim the diamond, but the envelope was no longer in the safe. Levi says that he thinks that he returned it earlier to Reuven or Shimon, whom he sees on a regular basis. If not, the envelope must have been stolen because he did not take it out for any other reason. Reuven and Shimon are sure that they did not receive the envelope back from Levi.

Although one who certainly received something and is not sure if he returned it is obligated to pay if his counterpart claims he is sure he did not receive it back, here Levi can still be exempt based on the possibility that it was stolen, in which case he would be exempt. Levi claims with certainty that the only possibilities are ones that exempt him. One could not have expected Levi to guard the envelope in question better than he guards his own diamonds, especially when he was told that Reuven would claim it in an hour. Although he does not claim conclusively that the envelope was stolen, this is common for claims of theft made by one who watches an object and was not negligent (e.g., when he forgot where he put something – see Bava Metzia 35a). He can surmise that if there is no other explanation for its being missing, it must have been stolen.

According to the classical halacha, Levi would have to swear that the diamond is not in his possession and that he was not negligent in watching it. If he would not be willing to swear, we must consider whether he can exempt himself with the claim that he did not see that there was actually a diamond in the sealed envelope. One might want to claim that since Levi saw that there was something in the envelope and it must have been worth at least a peruta, he would be obligated to swear that it was nothing more than minimal value. If so, since he does not know what to swear, he is obligated to pay. However, in a case like this, in which Shimon knows that Levi was not expected to know what was inside, Levi would be exempt from paying more than the value he admits. On the other hand, Levi said that Shimon could swear what the value of the contents of the envelope was, and thus if he decided to do so, Shimon would be believed regarding the value.

In this case, then, Shimon would have to swear about the minimum value of the contents of the envelope, and Levi would have to swear that the object is not in his possession and that he was not negligent. The custom is not to swear but to “redeem” oaths by means of compromise that makes the one who should have sworn pay a third of the value in question. Unless beit din feels that another amount is more appropriate, Reuven/Shimon should lose a third by not swearing the value and regarding the remaining two-thirds, Levi has to pay a third for not swearing what he needs to. Therefore, the standard payment should be approximately two ninths of the claimed value of the diamond.

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.