|
D'Var Torah - Parshas Shoftim - 5764
Shoftim (judges) in the Jewish court must be unyielding in
upholding the strict law of the Torah. At the same time they must be
compassionate people. Mercy, compassion and justice are vital traits as the
following true story illustrates:
Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, known as the Noda B’Yehudah, was
Rabbi of Prague. He once saw a non-Jewish boy crying on the street. The boy
told him that his stepfather, one of the bakers of the city, had sent him to
sell a basket of loaves of bread. He had sold all the loaves but had lost
the money, and he was afraid to go home because his cruel stepfather would
beat him mercilessly. He didn't know what to do or where to turn. The Rabbi
gave the despondent lad the necessary sum out of his own pocket.
Many years later, the Rabbi heard a knock on his door. He
opened the door and found a non-Jewish man waiting for him. The Rabbi
couldn’t imagine what this strange man wanted with him.
"I am the little boy who sat and cried many years ago, and
the Rabbi in his great kindness and generosity saved me then from my
stepfather's anger. I have come now to repay that good deed. The bakers of
the city are planning a terrible plot for the holiday of Passover. Since
after your holiday, the Jews buy bread from non-Jews, the bakers agreed to
poison all the loaves of bread that would be sold to the Jews. I have come
to warn you ahead of time of this plot. I must leave quickly. It is
dangerous for me to be here with you."
The Rabbi thanked him profusely for his warning and began
planning what to do in order to foil the anti-Semitic bakers' plot. If he
went to the authorities, the bakers would just deny everything.
During the entire holiday, the Rabbi kept quiet. On the
eighth night of the holiday, the Rabbi sent messengers for everyone to
gather in the main shul the next morning. There, the Rav would address the
entire community. Every Jewish resident of Prague obeyed the Rav's orders
and appeared at the appointed time in the main shul.
"A mistake was made this year in our calender calculations
and we started Pesach a day early," the Rabbi of Prague announced to the
astounded community, "Therefore, tomorrow is a holiday. We must still eat
matzah and may not eat chometz (bread)."
All the members of the community, albeit shocked, adhered to
his words without question.
At the end of the holiday, the bakers could not understand
why the Jews weren't buying their bread as they did every year. Instead,
policemen came and caught the bakers red handed. Seizing their loaves of
bread as evidence, they arrested the plotting bakers and threw them into
prison.
D'Var Torah - Parshas Shoftim
"Yodainu lo shofchu es hadam hazeh." "Our hands did not spill this
blood." (Deut. 9:1) The Torah teaches that when a corpse is found in Israel on
the road, the elders from the nearest city come out and proclaim that they did
not shed this blood. Rashi points out that we would never suspect elders
of bloodshed, so what the elders are saying is that the man received a proper
send off, with food and encouragement for the journey, when he left their town.
Not to do so would be tantamount to murder.
The Rosh Yeshiva once explained that we see from here a foundation
of the mitzvah of bikur cholim (visiting the sick). When we visit a sick person,
we are accompanying him on his 'journey'. Giving support to one embarking on a
journey or facing an illness can be a lifesaver, as the following true story,
in which I was personally involved, illustrates:
Mort Blumberg* (*name changed) once gave me a call concerning an
upcoming heart bypass surgery he was slated to undergo. He asked me what
religious things he could do for a successful operation. After 'prescribing' him
the standard regimen of prayer, recitation of Psalms etc., I told him that
someone with a heart condition had posed the same question to the great Rabbi,
the Vilna Gaon ztz"l. The Gaon told that man that if he had a problem with his
heart, he should be mesakain his laiv (correct his heart). Meaning that if he
fixed his heart in a spiritual sense, it would help his heart physically.
After some thought, he asked me if this meant that he would have to
make amends with his sister. I didn't know anything about his sister but I said
yes, of course.
He called me the next day saying, "Rabbi Lederman, I have been
grappling with this and it is too difficult for me to forgive my sister for what
she did to me. Are you sure I need to?" I said yes. He said he would think
about it.
He contacted me the following week and said, "Rabbi, when my mother
died fifteen years ago, my sister railroaded me out of my rightful inheritance.
True it wasn't a lot of money, but, there was a lot of sentimental value."
I replied that he still had to make peace with her. Family is very
important.
"But Rabbi, I was so deeply hurt, and she took such glee in
her heart at my pain."
I reminded him that it was his heart we were worried about here,
not hers. He said that he got the point. That was the last we brought up that
topic.
The next we spoke was while he was in the hospital recovering
from the operation. "Rabbi, I am so happy, I called my sister and though it was
hard at first, we made amends. She even flew out to San Diego to be with me in
the hospital during the entire process. The support she gave me was tremendous.
I don't know how I would have gotten through this whole ordeal without
her." His sister added, "After we made up, it was like nothing ever happened.
It's as if we took up from where we left off fifteen years ago. All the
closeness is still there."
Mort's heart made a wonderful recovery in every sense of the
word.
By Rabbi Dovid Lederman
Once again I am taking a back seat to a rising superstar. This week's Dvar Torah was written by Dovid as a second Bar Mitzvah Drasha: In Bava Metziah daf gimmel the gemara brings a case in which R’ Chiya teaches that when Reuvain claims that Shimon owes him \$100 and Shimon denies it yet there are witnesses who say that Shimon owes $50 , Shimon must pay the $50 and swear that he does not owe the rest of the claim. Then the gemara says v’tanna tuna shnaim ochazin batalis zeh omar ani matzahseha vzeh omar ani matzaseha v’chuli. That this case can be upheld by the case in the Mishna where two people come into the Beis Din holding a talis and each one says I found it first and it is all mine and they both swear that they don’t have less than half. Then on daf daled the gemara says that the case of R’Chiya cannot be upheld by the case of the Mishnah. It says Ele d’ke’amar v’tanna tuna mi dami hasam. L’malva iss lay sahadi l’lova lais lay sahadi d’lo masik lay v’lo midi, d’i hava lay sahadi d’lo masik lay vlo midi lo ba’i R’ Chiya lishtabuyay hacha d’anan sahadi b’hai anan sahadi b’hai. Meaning that in R’ Chiya’s case there is one set of adim but in the mishnah there are two sets of adim, because a person grip is like adim for him, so R’ Chiya’s case therefore is not compatible with the Mishna and the Mishna cannot uphold R’ Chiya’s case. Then the Gemara says ki itmar v’tanna tuna a’idach d’R’ Chiya itmar. D’amar R’ Chiya mana li b’yadcha v’hala omar ain lecha b’yadi ela nun zuz v’hailach chaiv. Mai taima hailach nami k’modeh miktzas dami v’tanna tuna shnaim ochazin batalis v’ha hachah kaivan d’tafis anan sahadi d’mai d’tafis hailach hu v’katanay yeshava. Meaning that when the gemara said v’tanna tuna it was about a different thing that R’ Chiya said, that being that when Reuvain says Shimon owes him $100 and Shimon says no I only owe you $50 and he gives him fifty this case is called hailach and he must swear that he does not owe the other $50. The reason for this is that this case is like modeh Miktzas where a man denies half of someones claim, and in Modeh Miktzas he has to swear so here he has to swear and this case can be upheld by the mishna because the Mishna is also a case of Hailach. Then the Gemara says that another Rabbi, R’ Shaishes disagrees with R’ Chiya and says that he does not have to swear. There is now a Tosafos on this. Tosafos says anan sahadi d’mai d’tafis hai v’chuli. Pirush Rashi kaivan d’havi k’haadaas adim mishtaba miderebbei Chiya k’maisa v’kasha kaivan d’lo matzi l’akuchay hach Braisa d’hailach, ela mikoach k’maisa laima v’tanna tuna akmaisa. Rashi explains the connection between the Mishna and the second case Chiya by saying that in the mishna the fact that they are holding the talis is like the adim in the first case which in turn is like the admission in the second case. Tosafos asks that if Rashi uses the first case the line between the Mishna and the second case why can’t you just say that the first case works and that’s that. Tosafos then answers d’anan sahadi lav davka d’mai d‘tafis machshavinan lay hashta t’fay may haadaas adim v’chashiv k’ilu modeh lay d’dedayhu. Meaning that holding it is not really adim rather it is similar but is more like the other person is confessing that what you are holding is yours. Now Tosafos brings up another question, d’mikol makom ika l’mifrach d’masnisin ki haichi l’hai modeh l’hai hai nami modeh l’hai v’afilu hachi kamishtabai k’d’parich akmaisa umai tikain. With the first case the problem was that the first case had one set of adim and the Mishnah had two , but in the second case it is also two sets of adim against one so how is the second case better than the first. Tosafos then answers d’hashta nami mikach mikoach taima d’b’samuch, ee hailach patur lo havi mitaknay Rabbanan shvuah d’laicha d’kavasay b’oraisa aval l R’ Chiya kamaisa ki nami b’haadaas adim patur mitaknay rabbanan shvuah b’masnisin d’chashiv hodaah b’mai d’tafis chavrei. The rabbanan cannot decree an oath unless in is in accordance with something the Torah says. The second case according to R’ Chiya has the same psak and involves a confession so the second case works well, but the first case ivolves adim so is not like the Mishna. Tosafos now says v’dochaik, d’lfi zeh ha d’lo ka’amar v’tanna tuna ak’maisa d’mai d’tafis chashiv k’hodaah, v’zu lo haisa pirchaso l’maila, ela mitaam ki haichi d’anan sahadi l’hai v’chuli. Meaning that while his answer is a great way to interpret the gemara it does not answer his question but Tosafos does not withdraw his interpretation - the pshat stands
|