Meir LaTorah: Divrei Torah on the Parsha

hrwtl ryam
h„u }rha }b ryam Âr
n„ul
A PROJECT OF THE EAST SIDE TORAH CENTER
www.estorahcenter.com / [email protected]
Parshas Mishpatim
Just A Reminder: It is prohibited to learn and/or talk during Davening, Kaddish, Chazoras Hashatz and Krias
Hatorah. HENCE reading this Parsha Sheet during any these times is absolutely prohibited.
Latest time for morning Shma:------------- -- 9:30
Lastest time for Tefilas Shachris ---------------------- 10:24 ( consult your Rav if you miss this time)
Note: Send e-mail to [email protected] to be put on the e-mail list to receive
current year write ups of HaRav Yisroel Reisman a‰fylc ‘s Chumash shiurim.
Rabbi Reisman - Parshas Mishpatim 5772
This week's Parsha Parshas Mishpatim is primarily a Parsha of Mishpitai Hatorah 21:1 (‫ִׁש ָּפטִים‬
ְ ‫ ַהּמ‬,‫)וְ ֵאּלֶה‬. This week's Parsha
has 53 Mitzvos in the Minyan Hamitzvos. Of those 53 not all are Bain Adam L'chaveiro. Not all of the Mitzvos are
Mishpatim. It is interesting that the Chasam Sofer writes (‫ִׁש ָּפטִים‬
ְ ‫ ַהּמ‬,‫ )וְ ֵאּלֶה‬of the 53 only 42 are Mishpatim which is
Gematria (‫)וְ ֵאּלֶה‬.
Many of these Mitzvos are in Maseches Bava Kamma which Yeshiva is learning this year and many of you have learned it
in Yeshiva a number of years ago. So today, we will have a special edition of getting ready for Shabbos. I am going to
present you with a list of Shailos of Bava Kamma Shailos. These will not be complicated ones. These will be ones that
touch on the basic Yedia (a piece of knowledge) that anybody who learned Bava Kamma would know, but as you know we
are very very far from being able to apply it as a Halacha L'maiseh unless it is pointed out to us. And so, let me begin the 5
Shailos.
1. This is a Shaila that took place. A man paid a debt to another man, this was one Yid to another Yid and he paid him cash.
The next day, the person who received the money came back to the one who gave it and said that one of the $100 bills that
he had received from him was counterfeit. He had gone into a store to change it and he was told that it is counterfeit. He
checked in the bank and indeed one of them was counterfeit. Therefore the person who received the payment is demanding
payment from the one who paid because he says the $100 that you gave me is no good and therefore, you still owe me a
hundred dollars. What is the Halacha, does he have to pay? This is an application of the well-known Sugya in a number of
places in Seder Nezikin of Bori V'shema. The person who is claiming the money says that he is certain that the money that
is counterfeit is from the money that he received. The one who paid it doesn't know. Is it true that the $100 that was
counterfeit was the one that he gave? He has no way of knowing for certain. We Pasken Bori V'shema Lav Bori Odif. That
when there is a Bori and a Shema the Bori can't be Motzi Mamon (meaning he can't demand payment from the Shema)
1
because the Shema doesn't have to pay. Still it says in Shulchan Aruch that Latzeis Yidai Shamayim, It is better to pay if
you trust the person who is demanding payment. Therefore, in this case, someone who wants Latzeis Yidai Shamayim
should pay. However, Mai'ikur Hadin it is Bori V'shema Lav Bori Odif. A Bori can't be Motzi Mamon, he can't demand
payment. It is a simple application of a Yesod that we all learned in the Gemara.
2. Somebody was sitting in a Shul Davening and there was a nail sticking out of the bench on which he was sitting. He
ripped his suit. He went to the Rav who owned the Shul, it was a Shul in someone's house and demanded payment. He said
that it is a Bor Birshus Harabim. After all, a Shul is a public area because people come and go and it is a Bor Birshus
Harabim and he ruined his suit because of the Rav's negligence of having a bench with a nail sticking out. What is the
Halacha? As you all know Bor is Pattur on Kailim because of the Drasha of the Posuk 21:33 ( ‫יְִכרֶה אִיׁש‬-‫ אֹו ּכִי‬,‫יְִפּתַח אִיׁש ּבֹור‬-‫וְכִי‬
‫ אֹו חֲמֹור‬,‫ ָׁשּמָה ּׁשֹור‬-‫וְלֹא יְַכּסֶּנּו; וְנָפַל‬--‫ )ּבֹר‬is Shor V'lo Adam and Chamor V'lo Keilim. The Gemara that Darshuns this Posuk is
found on 53b (6 lines from the bottom) ( ‫ מתניתין דלא כר'יהודה דתניא ר"י מחייב על נזקי כלים בבור מאי‬:'‫נפל לתוכו שור וכליו ונשתברו כו‬
‫)טעמא דרבנן דאמר קרא ונפל שמה שור או חמור שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים‬. So even if it true that the bench is a Bor Birshus
Harabim, however, ripping the suit which is an object is excluded from the payments of Bor. If you remember when we
learned Maseches Bava Kamma in Yeshiva I pointed out that if someone were to go to Ocean Parkway and dig a huge
whole in middle of the street with a jackhammer and stand at the side giggling and waiting for a car to come through, fall
right into the hole and the car would be totaled, Al Pi Din the person who dug the Bor is Pattur because of the Miut in Dinai
Bor of Shor V'lo Adam and Chamor V'lo Keilim. Even though it is a Chok and we don't understand the reason why it
should be so, but Bor is Patur on Keilim.
3. This Shaila happened to someone in the class when we learned Bava Kamma 2 cycles ago. He was a tenant in an
apartment in a lower floor of a 2 family or 3 family house. One day when he was in Yeshiva, a water pipe that was in the
ceiling burst. No one was home. The water came cascading out soaking and ruining the couch and the carpeting. The
landlord was settling with him to pay him for his losses and they had a dispute over how much to pay for the couch. The
landlord said it was a used couch and I only have to pay a partial value. The tenant said what do you mean, I can't buy a
partial couch. I have to buy a new couch so pay for the amount of a new couch. They decided that they would ask me. This
young man in Yeshiva asked me the Shaila. I responded that we had just learned a Gemara on Daf 6b in Bava Kamma (3rd
line from the top) ( ‫רבינא אמר לאתויי הא דתנן הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרה"ר והזיקו פטור מלשלם נתנו לו זמן לקוץ את האילן ולסתור את הכותל‬
‫ )ונפלו בתוך הזמן והזיקו פטור לאחר הזמן חייב‬that Kosel V'ilan Shenafla L'rishus Harabim the Bailim are Pattur. The Halacha is
that even though Adam is a Muad L'olam (if a person does damage he is responsible for those actions), however, if his
Mamon (objects) does damage, if someone is an Ones (guiltless) he is Pattur. If somebody has a perfectly good wall and
over the years it gets old and one day it collapses and ruins somebody's car or damages somebody's animal he is Pattur.
This is because an Ones is Pattur (‫)הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרה"ר והזיקו פטור מלשלם‬.Unless there was a prior history. Meaning there
was a warning that there was a water leak. But here where there was no such warning the person asking the Shaila doesn't
get a full couch or even a partial couch. The Bal is Patur L'gamri. I might add that this third Shaila would apply to the
second as well in the case of the bench in Shul. If the owner of the bench was guiltless and it just so happened that a good
bench over time had a nail that started to protrude, then he too is Pattur for this reason. We learned 3 Klallim in a few
minutes. The rule of Bori V'shema Lav Bori Odif, the idea of P'tur Keilim Min Habor, and now the idea of Kosel V'ilan
Shenafla L'rishus Harabim that even though Adam Hamazik we say Adam Muad L'olam, however, when it comes to
Mamon Hamazik, someone's property, then there is no such rule.
4. This one will most probably be the most confusing to everybody. Somebody takes a torch and goes over to someone
else's house and lights his curtains and carpeting and the whole house was burned down. In the house there was money that
was hidden in a very unlikely place. Maybe in the tank of a toilet or some other unlikely place that a person would think of
hiding money. Does the arsonist have to pay? The Gemara says that Aish is Patur on Tamun. Something hidden in a house
that is burned and a person would be Chayuv for Aish, Tamun is Pattur. Many of you are thinking that this is a trick
question because you all know that Tamun is Pattur. Well, I have to explain something to you. If you remember in the
second Perek there is a Sugya of Aisho Mishum Chitzav. This can be found on 22a (6 lines from the top) ( ‫אתמר ר' יוחנן אמר‬
‫)אשו משום חציו וריש לקיש אמר אשו משום ממונו‬. Today, Yeshiva Bachurim learn Bava Kamma the whole year for much time in
the morning and Chazeir the Shiur in the evening but they don't know what Aish actually is. We Pasken that (‫)אשו משום חציו‬
Aisho Mishum Chitzov which means that just like when a person takes a hammer and breaks someone's window that is
called Adom Hamazik and not hammer Hamazik. The (Adam) human being who did damage used the tool. We Pasken the
same thing regarding a fire. If someone takes a fire and torches someone's building that is Adam Hamazik and not Aish and
is Chayuv on Tamun. The Gemara explains the case of Aish is really rare. We need a case of (‫ )כלו ליה חציו‬Kalu Lo Chitzav
which the Gemara explains as follows. The Gemara on 23a (2 lines from the top) says ( ‫אמר רבא קשיא ליה לאביי למ"ד אשו משום‬
‫חציו טמון באש דפטר רחמנא היכי משכחת לה וניחא ליה כגון שנפלה דליקה לאותו חצר ונפלה גדר שלא מחמת דליקה והלכה והדליקה והזיקה בחצר‬
‫אחרת דהתם כלו ליה חציו אי הכי לענין גלוי נמי כלו ליה חציו אלא למאן דאית ליה משום חציו אית ליה נמי משום ממונו וכגון שהיה לו לגודרה ולא‬
‫גדרה דהתם שורו הוא ולא טפח באפיה וכי מאחר דמאן דאית ליה משום חציו אית ליה נמי משום ממונו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לחייבו בארבעה‬
2
‫ )דברים‬when someone torches someone's house wherever the fire travels it is like his arrow and it is Adam Hamazik.
However, if at the time he torched it there was a wall that would have prevented the fire from spreading and subsequently
that wall fell down, Kalu Lei Chitzav (the person's arrows have ceased) it is a place where his arrow could not go at the
time he lit the fire. If he was negligent in not preventing the fire from travelling further, only there does it have a Din of
Aish. So again, a very basic idea but something not well known that Aisho Mishum Chitzav (arrows). I have reminded you
as of now of 4 Sugyos that hopefully sound familiar from your years in Yeshiva.
5. A person stepped into a car service in the neighborhood and as he was riding to his destination he noticed on the floor an
envelope which he picked up and it contained a large amount of cash which he quietly slipped in to his pocket. Then he
called me. His question was the following. We learn out of this week's Parsha 22:3 (‫ ִה ָּמצֵא ִת ָּמצֵא ְביָדֹו‬-‫)אִם‬, the Gemara on 64b
(bottom line to top of 65a) ( ‫והאי אם המצא להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ידו אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל אם המצא‬
‫ )תמצא מ"מ א"כ לימא קרא או המצא המצא או תמצא תמצא מדשני קרא ש"מ תרתי‬learns from here Kinyan Chatzeir that a person can
acquire something without his knowledge if the Hefker item is in his Chatzeir (in his property). It doesn't have to a
courtyard or a house it can even be in a car or in a Keili, anything that a person owns. The question is, is this car service
owner or perhaps the owner of the car that was driving perhaps be the owner of that cash. Why? That cash was in his
Chatzeir, it was in his car and it had become Hefker when the owner realized he lost it and was Miyaeish. Therefore, it
should be his. Or if it is a type of Aveida that you don't have to return such as that of a non Jew then it should transfer to the
ownership of the driver of the car or the owner or the car with Kinyan Chotzeir. Is he Kone with Kinyan Chotzeir or not?
Well my time is very limited for today but I will introduce you to a beautiful and Geshmake Teshuva in the Igros Moshe,
Choshen Mishpat Cheilek Bais Teshuva 44. This is a great Teshuva to learn especially for this week's Parsha. There we find
a Shaila that came to Rav Moshe of someone who found an envelope of cash in a bank vault. It is the same Shaila, was the
bank Kone or is it his? Rav Moshe makes the unlikely argument that a bank vault is a Chotzeir She'aino Mishtameres. The
only time that a Chatzeir is Kone is a Chotzeir HaMishtameres, a Chotzeir which is safe and which is guarded for its owner.
A Chotzeir that people come and go is called a Chotzeir She'aino Mishtameres and is not Kone. That is the short answer of
the Shaila here regarding the cab. Although Rav Moshe has a very interesting insight into this whole discussion.
And so with these few minutes I hope we have Chazered 5 old friends: 1) Bori V'shema Lav Bori Odif, 2) the idea of P'tur
Keilim Min Habor, 3) the idea of Kosel V'ilan Shenafla L'rishus Harabim that even though Adam Hamazik we say Adam
Muad L'olam, however, when it comes to Mamon Hamazik, someone's property, then there is no such rule and Ones is
Pattur by Mamon Hamazik, 4) The case of Tammun, Aisho Mishum Chitzov, and now 5) the idea that a Chatzeir needs to
be a Chotzeir HaMishtameres and you can look it up in the Igros Moshe for a more in depth analysis of Chotzeir
HaMishtameres.
The question of the week is and was dealt with in Shiur many years ago: we know that Hamotzi Maichaveiro Alav Haraya.
If you and I have a dispute and there is a question and something is unclear (we don't know all the facts), the question is do
I have to pay you. So we say, Hamotzi Maichaveiro Alav Haraya. The one who wants to take money from another person
has to bring the proof. So therefore, I am not sure if I owe you money, you are not sure if I owe you money, something
happens which throws this into doubt, I don't have to pay because Hamotzi Maichaveiro Alav Haraya. That is a basic rule
in Shas.
The question is, if it is your money then we should apply a different rule, the rule of Safeik D'oraiisa L'chumra. It is a
question of Lo Tignov or it is a question of Lo Sashok. It is a question of whether I am stealing money from you. Why don't
we say Safeik D'oraiisa L'chumra. If I am unsure if it is your money or mine I should have to give it to you. Why do we say
Hamotzi Maichaveiro Alav Haraya. It is not a Gizairas Hakasuv, it is a Sevara. The Sevara seems to be Mufrach. Now with
that Geshmake Kasha I will bid you farewell for this Shabbos.
Bircas HaTorah: Rabbi Krieger’s Weekly Parsha Sheet
This week’s Parsha begins with the verse, “And these are the statutes which you should put in front of the Jewish people”.
Rashi quotes the Midrash which explains what it means to “put the laws in front of them”. The Midrash explains: lest one
think that it would be enough to merely teach it to them two or three times and rely on them to “get” the rest of it through
their intuitive abilities, Hashem commanded Moshe to “Put the laws in front of the Jewish people” – i.e. to lay it out for
them clearly like a set table so that it is apparent what the Torah is saying.
I believe this Midrash requires explanation. What would Moshe have done had he not been commanded by God to make
the laws clear? Would he have been purposely ambiguous or diabolical? The Gemora in Nedarim (38) extols Moshe’s
unique ability to explain things very clearly. Furthermore, we know how far Moshe went to help each and every Jew in
3
every way that he could. In fact, his excellence in this trait was the reason he was chosen to lead the Jewish people. Why
then did Hashem have to command Moshe on this point if Moshe most probably would have done it on his own?
I found that R’ Chaim Kamil zt”l, the famous Rosh Yeshiva of Ofakim points out this difficulty and offers a truly novel
solution. He says that it is well known that Torah can only be acquired if one is willing to toil diligently for it and without
this integral factor, Torah cannot be acquired. We have many sources in Chazal to back this point up. This being said, we
can now offer a possibility to answer our difficulty. Moshe Rabenu perhaps would have thought to himself that since it is
imperative for the Jews to work hard in order to understand the Torah, perhaps he should only lay out the bare essentials of
the Torah, and make the Jews work for the rest. Therefore Hashem had to expressly command him otherwise.
One might query further, however, why was Moshe wrong? If indeed the only way to acquire Torah is through industrious
labor, then Moshe’s “spoon feeding” them would in fact be detrimental to their ability to understand the Torah and they
would not be successful! Why then did Hashem command him to do something which would ultimately hinder their ability
to accomplish their goal of learning the whole Torah?
R’ Chaim answers this question as well by explaining that even with the most elaborate explanations of every concept of
the Torah, there would still be what to talk about and toil in for a life-time. This is true because the Torah is infinite and by
definition, can never “run out” of ideas. Anybody who has every learned Torah even for a short while, realizes the truth of
this principle. There is no end to the depth that one can pursue on each topic of Torah because it consists of endless layers
of understanding.
R’ Chaim explained another fascinating point. Moshe did not merely give over to us the dry laws and expect us to
memorize them. Rather he gave us all the laws and all the reasons behind the laws so that we could toil in Torah and be
able, and in fact required, to regenerate the Torah in every generation. There is a tremendous benefit to the Torah being
given over in this fashion. Had the Torah been given merely as a set of rules, many of them would have been misconstrued
and or distorted over the many years of exile and many errors would have certainly arisen. But this way, anybody who toils
in Torah properly can reach the same conclusions that Moshe Rabenu himself did by simply applying the laws and
principles that Moshe taught us to do.
When one examines the references made to the Mitzvah of learning Torah, one sees clearly that the entire gist of the
Mitzvah was meant to be done continuously and diligently. For example, in the Shema, we say “And you shall constantly
review it with your children, and you shall speak it over in your home, on the road, and before you go to sleep at night”. Or
the verse in Psalms says, “And you shall toil in it day and night”. In Parshas Bechukosai, we see that all the calamities and
curses that befall the Jews are specifically because we are lax in this commandment, and of course, when we are performing
it properly, there is no end to the amount of blessing that God pours forth on us.
The Slonimer Rebbe used to explain beautifully that the Jewish peoples’ relationship with the Torah is similar to that of a
bride to his groom. The verse says "‫ – "מורשה קהילות יעקב‬and the Midrash says, don’t read it "‫ – "מורשה‬which means
inheritance, but rather "‫ – "מאורסה‬which means betrothed. The Jews are wed and intimately connected to the Torah. And
the Rebbe added, the same way one’s wife would not be too happy if one day he was her husband, and the next day
somebody else’s husband, similarly one must treat his relationship with the Torah – to be consistent and constant in his toil
and diligence, never missing a day and always being dedicated faithfully to his holy bride.
The Sabba from Kelm used to quote the famous Gemora in Megillah (3) which says that an angel appeared to Yehoshua
while he was fighting the seven nations with a sword in his hand and threatened to kill Yehoshua. The angel explained that
although the Jews had forgotten to offer the afternoon sacrifice the previous day, that was not why he was coming. Rather
he was coming because the Jews hadn’t been learning a sufficient amount of Torah during the war. The Sabba pointed out
that during a war, it is quite difficult to learn and furthermore, the angel implied that they were learning, just not enough.
Rashi explains that granted during the day, it would have been impossible to learn, but they could have learned at night.
And even though they did learn, they were expected to learn more seriously and professionally, even though they were in
the middle of a war. From here we see how seriously Hashem expects us to take the Mitzvah of learning Torah and toiling
in the Torah with all of our might.
I would just like to conclude with the powerful words of R’ Dov Shteinhotz, the famous Mashgiach of Kol Torah. R’ Dov
used to quote the famous Gemorah which says that God held the mountain of Sinai over the Jewish people like a barrel and
said that if they don’t accept the Torah, they will be buried alive. Tosafos ask, why was this necessary, hadn’t they already
said "‫ ? "נעשה ונשמע‬R’ Dov offered an answer that although the Jews did say that they were willing to accept the Torah,
perhaps it was only because they were very excited based on all the miracles they had seen, but there would be times in
their lives, and indeed times throughout history when the Jews might regret that decision and not feel as much “desire” and
excitement for the Torah. It was specifically for these times that Hashem needed to “threaten” and “force” the Jewish
people to learn the Torah. Why? Why would Hashem force something on us that we don’t want? The answer, says R’
4
Dov, is that Hashem knows that once he forces us, and we begin to do it, we will see how sweet it is and will certainly not
regret it. It is only the Yetzer Hara at the time that is trying to convince us that the Torah is bitter, but if Hashem forces us,
or better yet, if we force ourselves to learn even during these difficult times, we will certainly see how sweet the Torah is
and continue doing it with great desire and gusto.
May Hashem help us to learn the Torah with great joy and excitement all of our days!
Aish Hatorah: We Are What We Speak by Rabbi Stephen Baars
"Dreams are made of an airy stuff, they exist in a world apart. Actions, in contrast, are mortar and brick, real for all to see. Words are the
bridge from wish to reality, they possess the power to turn thin air into great cities.
But be careful, for that bridge can be traversed in both directions and rather than help build a great city, it can destroy a beautiful dream."
Words change and affect us. They concretize that which would otherwise be ethereal ideas. They are the first step in turning feelings and
thoughts into reality... wishes and desires into actuality.
"Words are to ideas what actions are to words."
Actions are 'more' than words, they affect our entire being. We can well understand that a murderer, through the very act of his killing, is
a changed person. The action of cold-bloodedly ending another's life deeply affects the way one feels towards others.And while murder is
an extreme example, it is clear that actions do change us.
The spoken word has a far less effect than actions, but stronger than ideas. Someone who speaks of being unkind to another, is already a
different person from one who holds mere thoughts of these acts.
Once we speak of a thing, it already changes our relationship to it. Jeremiah the prophet says, "Behold you spoke and you made the evil
permissible" (3:5). People don't just go out and shoot people. Rather, there is a process. First they talk about it and discuss it. And little by
little, it doesn't seem so bad anymore. The first step in doing anything wrong is to talk about it.
Why do people talk about it before doing it? Because "talking" is a process of desensitizing. At first, a person may want to do the
questionable act, but can't. He would feel too guilty. So he discusses it.
Feelings are very sophisticated and delicate. They are not easily acquired - but are easily removed.Talking can desensitize and dilute
feelings.
An example: Try and have an open discussion on the idea of spitting in your mother's face. It's difficult even to talk about it, the feelings
are so strong. Though once you can freely talk about it, you are already on the path to doing it.
This does not mean we should have a 'closed' society, banning any discussion of a pre-assigned list of subjects. But it does mean there are
two ways to discuss ideas. You can talk about a despicable act in a way that expresses feelings of disgust - or you can discuss it with a
sense of glee.
Man is a delicate and fragile instrument - like a powerful telescope. Properly positioned, the telescope can be used to see unbelievable
distances. But a slight misalignment of a lens or mirror, or a little dirt in the wrong place, can render even the best of telescopes useless.
Similarly, misplaced words and sentiments can knock off-balance a human being's perception of reality - and scramble his sensitivities.
This week's parsha states:
"...and the name of other gods do not mention, they should not be heard on your lips" (Exodus 23:13).
Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg zt"l (former Dean of Yeshiva Ner Yisrael in Baltimore) points out that some things are so dangerous that they
should never be discussed. If however, they need to be mentioned, then it should be only be way of allusion. Using the name of an idol even to its detriment - changes, affects and desensitizes us. Therefore the Torah forbids it. The power of speech is such that words
influence us negatively, regardless of the intention behind them.
The Torah offers many tools for preserving our purity of speech. For instance, Judaism requires of us to speak in a "clean way." It goes
without saying that our language should not include obscenities or foulness. But the Torah takes the idea much further. For example,
when the Torah speaks about non-kosher birds, it says "and those that are not pure." Rather than use the negative form "impure," the
Torah phrases it as a "non-positive" - not pure. It is a subtlety, but to be sensitive to the beauty of life, one needs to keep one's mind
clean. The method of achieving this is a clean mouth.
"Easier it is by far, to see beauty in a rose garden than to find it in the depository of refuse."
Make your mind the "garden" through the use of clean language, rather than the "depository" through foul language.
5
Don't talk about people, races of people, men, women, life, your day, your work, anything, in ways that you don't want them to be
actualized. If you describe life in foul terms, life becomes just a little more foul.
BRAINSTORMING QUESTIONS TO PONDER
Question 1: What were the most difficult words you ever had to say? How did those words affect you? What made them so difficult?
Question 2: In what ways would you like to be a better person tomorrow? Express your answer in words, repeat it four times, and see
how it affects you.
Parsha Shiur by Rabbi Mayer Friedman
“And these are the judgments that you shall place before them” (21:1)
The first word of the parsha, “ve’eileh,” “and these,” seems to be a paradox. “And” seems to denote other things in
addition to what is mentioned, while the word “these” seems to imply only these specific items. R’ Dovid Feinstein
explains that the way in which to add to the Torah is from within, from these specific items that are already in the Torah.
The way Jewish law is derived is only through what is in the Torah. We need look no further than the Torah to understand
how to view contemporary issues. We should not decide based upon our own logic. Rather, we should learn the laws that
are written in the Torah and apply them to modern-day situations.
What does “that you shall place before them” mean? Rashi quotes the following Chazal: “Hashem told Moshe: It should
not occur to you to say: I shall teach them the law two or three times until they have memorized it but I shall not trouble
myself to make them understand the reasons and explanations. Moshe was to ‘place it before them’ like a table that is set
for a person with a meal ready to be eaten.” Moshe was to place the laws in front of the Bnei Yisrael in a way that was easy
to understand, with everything set up for them. This Rashi illustrates the responsibility that a teacher has to his students.
There is no mitzvah to make the subject matter difficult. The teacher must be creative and seek out the best way for the
students to find the learning like a set table. He must prepare well and do sufficient research. In this way, his students will
gain a proper understanding of the halacha and will not make mistakes in the halacha.
R’ Moshe Feinstein wrote (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:91) that it is forbidden to write seforim that only give the bottomline halacha without providing explanations or references. This is because without the full explanation, one can easily
misconstrue the halacha and may wrongly compare situations and draw inappropriate conclusions. Similarly, a teacher
must be sure to provide sufficient explanation for the halachos that he teaches so that the students can fully comprehend
what is being taught.
“Then his master shall bring him to the judges and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore
through his ear with the awl, and he shall serve him forever” (21:6)
What is the significance of the law to pierce the ear of a slave who wants to stay longer than six years? Rashi explains
that it is a punishment in kind for his sin. The person whose ear heard from Hashem that the Jewish people are the servants
of Hashem should not have gone and acquired another human master for himself. Therefore, this ear is pierced. Along
the same lines, the person whose ear heard “Do not steal” at Har Sinai should not have stolen and so the ear that did not
listen is pierced.
The Chofetz Chaim writes in his introduction to Hilchos Shabbos in the Mishna Berura that if one sins with certain
limbs, those limbs will be defective in the future, after Techiyas Hameisim, the revival of the dead. While the Chofetz
Chaim discusses this principle regarding the future, perhaps this is the same idea behind the law of piercing the ear of the
slave. Since he sinned by not taking to heart what he heard with his ear, the just punishment would be to inflict a blemish
upon his ear.
“One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death” (21:12)
Rashi asks: Why is this posuk necessary if the law of a murderer is also written elsewhere, in Parshas Emor? He answers
that the posuk in Emor only mentions that he hit another person. One may have thought that one would get the death
penalty for merely striking his fellow, even without killing him. Therefore, this posuk, which explicitly stipulates that the
victim must die, is necessary to teach us that this possible conclusion is false and that the death penalty only applies when
the victim dies. This Rashi teaches us an amazing lesson. We must realize that striking another person is such a grave act
that one could entertain the thought that it would warrant capital punishment. Knowing this should give a person cause for
second thought before hitting another person.
“When men will fight and they will jostle a pregnant woman and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality, he shall
surely be penalized when the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give it through the judges’ orders”
(21:22)
6
The posuk seems to switch from the plural form, “and they collide,” to the singular form, “shall cause to be assessed
against him.” What is the reason for this change? The answer is that although only one of the two men hit the woman and
only the one who actually hits the woman must pay, the other person is also responsible in the eyes of Hashem because he
was involved in causing the harm to occur by getting involved in a fight. One is also held accountable for causing or
persuading someone to do something wrong even if he did not actually do anything himself. Therefore, it is considered as
if they both hit the pregnant woman.
“You shall not curse a judge, and you shall not curse a leader among your people” (22:27)
Rashi writes that this posuk had a dual meaning. The posuk is a prohibition against cursing both Hashem and a judge.
Why is a judge called by the name of Hashem? The Torah teaches us what our true attitude toward a judge should be. A
judge who fears Hashem and decides a Din Torah must be viewed as a representative of Hashem and His word. The judge
is Hashem’s emissary to determine disagreements based upon Torah law. Therefore, one must approach the judge with
respect and awe. To teach this idea, the Torah refers to a judge by the name of Hashem. We should also try to find our
own individual rabbis and teachers who can be our personal connection to the word of Hashem and provide us with
guidance in the way of the Torah.
Baruch College/NYU Parsha Shiur Shiur given by Rabbi Mayer Friedman Written by Michael Gutmann
Young Israel of the Main Line Parsha Musings by Rabbi Steinberg
(author of The Year In Drashos: A Rabbi's Anthology Of Contemporary Thoughts On The Weekly Parsha)
Mishpatim 5765: On Loading Donkeys and Disagreeing Agreeably
There were some thugs in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who used to cause him great harm. He began to pray that they should
die. His wife, Beruria, said to him, “What is your reason? Because it says (Psalms 104) that the ‘chattaim’ shall be
obliterated? Does it say ‘chot’im’ (meaning sinners)? It says ‘chattaim’ (which can be translated as ‘sins’)!...You should
pray that they will return in Teshuva!” He prayed [for that result] and they repented… (Talmud, Berachos 10a)
The Netziv (acronym for Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1893, great Rosh Yeshiva of the famed Volozhin
Yeshiva until its closing in 1891) was known for having great tolerance. Even to those whose ideology he vehemently
opposed, The Netziv was respectful and cordial. By the testimony of Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (author of Torah
Temima, the Netziv’s nephew, and later, brother-in-law) the Netziv would “tolerate the acquaintance of those whose beliefs
were different from his, if, at least, they were dignified in their conduct and behavior and spoke appropriately…” (Mekor
Baruch, pg. 1823). The Netziv himself, in fact, extols this sort of tolerance and attributes such an approach to Avraham
Avinu. (See introduction to the Book of Bereishis in Haamek Davar, wherein the Netziv explains that the Forefathers were
called “Yesharim” – straight ones – In this week’s Parsha we are given the Mitzvah of helping to load or unload animals.
The Gemora (Bava Metzia 32b) says that if faced with one animal waiting to be loaded and another to be unloaded, one
should help with the unloading first because of the discomfort of the laden animal. However, the Gemora says that there is
an exception to this rule. If the animal waiting to be loaded belongs to one’s enemy, then he should rather engage in helping
to load the animal first because the opportunity “to subdue his desire” (i.e., to overcome his tendency not to want to help his
enemy) is even greater than taking an animal out of discomfort.
Elsewhere (Pesachim 113b), the Gemora points out that we are discussing an enemy who is a deliberate sinner and is
therefore deserving of hate. (In fact, the Gemora says it is a Mitzva to hate him.) But if this is so, the Tosafists ask, then
why does the Torah seek to have us “overcome” our hatred. Is this hatred not warranted?
The Tosafists answer that it can be expected that in response to the original, justified, hatred, the sinner will hate back,
which, in turn, will cause an escalation of emotions, and ultimately the first person will hate the sinner personally. This is
no longer a hatred of sin, but of a person. It is this hatred that the Torah wants us to overcome. (Rav Aharon Kotler
develops this theme further; see Mishnas Rav Aharon on Torah, pg. 132.)
My Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Zelig Epstein Shlit”a, related the following in the name of Rav Elchonon Wasserman (I once heard
a similar explanation offered in the name of Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, author of the great Chassidic work, Tanya): The
greatness of the chapter in Tehillim known as Ashrei is that it teaches us the traits of G-d and is alphabetically sequenced.
(See Talmud, Berachos 4b.) These two characteristics are not independent but are interrelated. Ashrei teaches us that there
is an order to the achievement of G-dly traits. “Supporting those who fall” leads to “uplifting those who are bent,” which
leads to “opening one’s hand to sustain others”, and so on. It is particularly noteworthy, therefore, that the very last attribute
described is “And all of the wicked He will destroy.” It is only after one has achieved all of the other traits -- being
favorable, merciful, good to all, etc. -- that he can pursue the aim of hunting evil.
7
It is very easy for hatred of a principle to swell into hatred of a person. It is the challenge of the true servant of Hashem to,
on the one hand, be absolutely uncompromising in his rejection of ideology that runs counter to the Torah, while on the
other hand not develop personal animosity toward the possessors of misguided beliefs. When we can achieve this balance
we have the greatest hope for the elimination of sin and the return of sinners.
Good Shabbos.
Copyright © 2002-2006, Young Israel of the Main Line
HELP US HELP YOU!
Dear Past, Current and Potentially New ☺ Members
The 5775
5775 Membership Drive is a few months old.
Please help us if you can. Dues:
$50 Individual /$100 Family.
Membership dues can be mailed to us at 519 Grand
Street/NYC, NY 10002 or sent via PAYPAL from our website
http://www.estorahcenter.com/
Hashem is sending us “wake up” calls.
Let’s not hit the “snooze” button.
Some Shul/Bais Medrash related areas we can work on.
Review the “DOs and DON’Ts” of talking in Shul/Bais Medrash in general
and during Davening in particular. We don’t want to disrespect a Mokom
Kodesh or destroy the power our Tephilahs could have.
Return Seforim to their place on the shelves before we leave or when
finished using them. Which ever comes first. Causing other Bitul Torah is
inexcusable.
Leaving a Mokom Kodesh dirtied is disrespectful to the Mokom Kodesh
and to others who Daven/Learn there. For example, do not leave dirty
tissues on tables and chairs.
Let’s answer Hashem’s “wake up” calls
8
s"xc
d ‰ r mie a l r q k iie e l c p r n mg p n ‡ x o a j l nil ` ` p ip g ‡ x p ‰ f l
d " r mie a l r q k iie e l ` k in md x a ` 'x z A d A e l p " f l e
BASED ON THE SHIURIM GIVEN BY R’ MENACHEM MENDEL LERNER
AT CONGREGATION ANSHEI S’FARD OF LAKEWOOD, N.J.
s"ga,v ,ba
j"g ;s tnuh hnuhv ;s ohypan ,arp asue ,ca
1] On the v t v ,Ibc It ohbc IK-vs k
hu v t Ik-iT h uhb«st-ot euxp
:IP$dc t&mh& tUvu vh
b«st$k vhv T vh
s
khu ~ h"ar says that this euxp teaches
us the master can give his hrcg scg a ,hbgbf vjpa so that the master
will be able to keep the children. The oharpn ask, since this hrcg scg
has the status of a full-fledged sht regarding all other ,umn, why did
the vru, take off the ruxht of a sht living with a vjpa? He stole
something & was not able to pay & that is why s"c sold him for an scg.
Since he was rcug one ruxht of vchbd, why should we be rh,n him
another ruxht?
2] What lesson can we learn today from the varp of hrcg scg?
3] Why were the dogs vfuz that the vru, says to give them the vphry
animals to eat?
4] Why only by vchbd does the vru, say if the person can’t pay for the
damage that he is sold & not by other ohehzn?
5] Why does cursing a father or mother have a more severe death
penalty than hitting them?
.urh, ~ The ibuc,t ohbezn brings from arhv r"ar the reason that the
vru, said the iust can give the hrcg scg a ,hbgbf vjpa. There are
two categories of ,umn, one is ouenk ost ihc, for example being kkjn
,ca or eating on rupf ouh or eating ,uruxht ,ukftn. The second is ihc
urhcjk ost; for example not stealing from someone else or not hurting
someone else. There are individuals who have the perception that if he
will, for example, be ,ca kkjn then he understands he did a big vrhcg
& he was odup in his ktrah ,ause. However, if he just cheated
someone financially, that is no big deal; that isn’t really such an vrhcg.
The vru, wants to demonstrate to us that line of thinking is false. When
a person does an vrhcg which is ouenk ost ihc, it is an vrhcg & the
person is taking away from his vause by doing it. The same applies to
the ,umn that are urhcjk ost ihc. The same vru, that said not to be
,ca kkjn also said not to steal. By the vru, saying give the hrcg scg
the ,hbgbf vjpa [which is a degrading thing], a person will wonder
why could this person live with a vjpa? The answer is because when
this person stole he was odup in his vause. The reason why a sht is
ruxt to a vjpa is because of the vause that a sht has in him. By
stealing, he is lowering his vause & is therefore r,un to a vjpa.
We find a similar concept that a person who doesn’t do ,urhcg is a
~ d yxtd zp ad
ause. When a person does do ,urhcg, by doing ,unvc vagn, he
brings himself down from the vdhrsn of an ost to the level of a vnvc.
There is a famous story about the ausev ohhjv rut. The ohhjv rut
ausev spent the majority of his time engrossed in vru,, & only on a
temporary basis engaged in his profession, weaving threads of gold &
silver into fancy clothing. Once, the governor of Sali, where the rut
ausev ohhjv lived, was marrying off his daughter. The entire family
bought expensive clothing & sent them to the ohhjv rut to weave gold
threads into the material. The ohhjv rut said to them, every month I
work enough for my livelihood, & the rest of the time I devote to
learning vru,. This month I have already earned enough money for my
livelihood. Come back next month. They told the ohhjv rut that the
wedding was taking place before the end of this month. The ohhjv rut
still refused to take the job & returned to his learning. When the word
got back to the Governor that the ohhjv rut refused to perform work for
his daughters’s wedding, he was furious. He immediately ordered that
the lions in his courtyard be starved & he sent a warning to the rut
ohhjv that if he doesn’t accept the job at once he will be thrown into the
lion’s den. The ohhjv rut ignored the warning & continued his learning.
The Governor’s men eventually came & took the ohhjv rut from his
home & threw him into the lion’s den. The ohhjv rut sat in middle of the
lions, who formed a circle around him, & the ohhjv rut sang chapters of
ohkv, in a sweet, pleasant voice, as all the lions watched & listened. It
was quickly reported to the governor what was happening, & the
governor came to witness first hand the amazing miracle. As soon as
the Governor looked into the den, he ordered that the ohhjv rut be
lifted out of the den. The governor begged the ohhjv rut for
forgiveness & showered him with gifts.
The euxp says ;Ig-kF k$gu .rt v ,$Hj-k
$ F k$g vhv
h ofT j u oftrInU
$
:UbT
b ofs hC oHv$ h&dS-k
f cU
vn s tv «a«nr T rJ t k«fC ohn v$ . this means
that the gcy is that every animal has fear of an ost, but that only
applies to such people like the ausev ohhjv rut who acts like an ost.
However, those people that do ,urhcg & act like animals, then one
animal doesn’t have to fear another.
Another reason why the master could give him a ,hbgbf vjpa, the
d"ckr says, is because this person stole. That means that he doesn’t
h"b ktrah obc ka ,hrcv kg u,jpanu ohucbgztr aubhhbc ihnhbc wrk "cuy kzn"
ROSENBERG
;xuhk o,c ,xurt kg u,jpanu LEVINE ovrct wrk "cuy kzn"
s"xc
have an understanding of the concept of ownership i.e. even though
something belongs to someone else, he has no problem taking it away
from that person. Therefore the vru, is rh,n the master to give him a
,hbgbf vjpa & have children with her. After the servant gets an
attachment to them & feels that they belong to him, they are taken away
from him. Now he feels what it’s like to take something away from
someone else. [The reason why the vru, was not rh,n to give him a
vjpa when he is not married, is that since we want him to become
rehabilitated, if he doesn’t have a wife & his own children, we are afraid
he will get so attached to the vjpa, that he will be unable to separate
from her when his ,uscg is finished.]
The gucav ihhgn brings the following story that cegh ejmh wr iutdv
runhykuc ,chah atr k"mz inrusur said happened with him. inrsur wr
learned in the vchah of vesuckx; he was among the outstanding
students there. One day inrsur wr had a very wae gertya on a thdux
they were learning. inrsur wr asked the vrucjca ,uhrt [lit. the lions of
the group] like k"mz hembhne cegh wru rkyue irvt wr but no one was
able to come up with a satisfactory answer. inrsur wr decided to ask
[wzxhbupn crv ka ub,uj] rhnuekuun chhk wr iutdv, who for many years
served as the Rov of the city of rhnuekhuu. When he became elderly, he
decided to give up the ,ubcr & went to the city of vbcue to be able to
be diligent in his learning without having any ,usry to interrupt him.
vesuckx was at the outskirts of vbcue. inrsur wr crossed the bridge
over the river to the house of chhk wr so that he could ask chhk wr his
wae. inrsur wr told over his wae to chhk wr. chhk wr listened intently to
his wae. He then took out a trnd & went through the thdux & chhk wr
commented the wae is a wae. It is a wae [as strong] like iron. chhk wr
attempted different ways of answering the wae but he was not satisfied
with any of his attempts. The end result was that chhk wr said the wae
stands. chhk wr walked inrsur wr out the door & told him to be careful
where he walks because it is very dark & there are a lot of obstacles on
the way. inrsur wr made his way back safely to where he was staying.
He was very tired so he said vynv kg gna ,thre & fell asleep. When
inrsur wr woke up, it was already day. When he opened his eyes, he
saw chhk wr [who was 86 years old at the time,] standing patiently next
to his bed looking at him. inrsur wr quickly washed ohsh ,khyb & in an
excited & shaken voice he asked why is the Rebbi here? chhk wr
responded I am waiting for you to wake up. After you left I continued
working on your wae & oav lurc I came up with the .urh,. So I
immediately came after you. I found out where you were staying & I am
here waiting to tell you yap. Say vru,v ,frc & I will tell you yap. wr
inrsur, with fear in his voice, said the Rebbi is waiting for me here a
number of hours. Why didn’t the Rebbi just wake me up? chhk wr gave a
tremble. How could such a thought enter your mind that I should wake
you up? That is !vbha kzd Then it would come out a vrhcgc vtcv vumn.
The ,gsu ogy brings from the ausev rvuz a "tkpb rcs". The rvuz
ausev learns that ohypan are "thkudkds tbhs". The ohbhs of a kudkd
[which lit. means to roll] is there are certain times that a vnab, that
already went through being part of a human body in this world, has to
make a return trip to this world. When a person’s vnab comes down to
this world, there are certain things that the vnab is supposed to
accomplish. If those accomplishments were not met, then the person’s
vnab must return again to the world to accomplish certain goals. Also,
if a person did certain ,urhcg when he was on this world, he will have to
return to this world in order to correct what he did wrong. The ogy
,gsu says from the ausev rvuz that, if for example icutr caused
iugna a loss, that is enough reason for him to have to come back to
this world in another kudkd to repay that loss. That is why if a person
goes to a vru, ihs & the truth is that he is right, but he loses the ihs
vru, because he doesn’t have the proper proof to show he is right,
then the person should not feel bad because it could very well be that in
a previous kudkd he owed the person money & by this vru, ihs he is
paying him back & this is the purpose of why he came again to this
world. ohbp kf kg we see from this ausev rvuz the severity of having a
debt to another person & not paying it. That is enough of a reason to
have to come back to this world to repay it.
Every varp in the vru, applies to everyday life in every time in
history. When it comes to the varp of hrcg scg, even though we don’t
have an hrcg scg in the circumstances of a person being sold for
stealing or a person selling himself to get money, we do have a certain
type of ,uscg even today. The gucav ihhgn brings the following kan
from k"mz ofj ovrct wr iutdv. There was this doctor who was an
illusionist i.e. he didn’t really know too much about being a doctor.
However, he was able to fool everyone into thinking he was a great
doctor. One day the doctor told his son come let me teach you the
tricks of my trade. They went to a person’s house who had fallen ill. The
sick person was lying in bed. He looked very pale & he was holding his
stomach & groaning from stomach pain. The doctor looked in the
patient’s eyes. Then he asked him to stick out his tongue & he looked in
his throat. The doctor puts his hand on his head as if he was thinking.
Then he says with an authoritative voice, did you give this person
lettuce to eat? They admitted giving him lettuce to eat. The doctor said
that lettuce is poison for this person. I will give him a remedy. He wrote
down on a piece of paper to buy some castor oil, which only cost a few
,uyurp, & he gave them a bill for a golden rbhs.
After they left the patient’s house, the doctor’s son asked his father
how did you know that he ate lettuce? The doctor replied very simple.
When we entered their house, I noticed that they had lettuce in the
garbage that was all withered & wormy. I figured that is what they must
have eaten from. The doctor’s son made a note of how his father came
to his deduction.
The next day someone came knocking on the doctor’s door. There is
a very sick person who needs a doctor. The doctor was not home.
However, the doctor’s son said I also know how to heal people; come
take me to the patient. When they got to the patient’s house, the
gzhhr vbaua ic rgc cusku vecr vbhc ,c vbj vnjurku ohrn ic rgcus ktunaku ynurp vyg ic ovrctku vrucs vcuy ,c vchr gshhtku vecr th,c ic aubhc ihnhbcvnhka vtuprk
ktrah hkuj rta lu,c whj gyht ic ;xuhku
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS PLEASE CALL 732-363-8534N
s"xc
doctor’s son looked around & he didn’t see any food in the garbage but
he did see a stall of donkeys & the whole court yard was full of their
dung. The doctor’s son walked into the patient’s room. He looked in his
eyes; then in his throat. Then he thought a minute & he said with an
authoritative voice, you ate the meat of donkeys. That is what made you
sick. When the people of the household heard what the doctor’s son
had to say, they said this person is crazy & they threw him out of the
house with great shame. When the doctor’s son got home, he told his
father what had happened to him. The doctor asked what gave you the
idea to say he ate donkey meat? The doctor’s son replied you did
father. If there is left over lettuce, that means the person ate lettuce. If
there is donkeys, then it means he ate donkey meat. The doctor said my
son why do you talk like a fool? If there is lettuce in the garbage, then it
means that he ate lettuce. If there is the dung of the donkeys all over
the court yard, it means that the smell of that is hurting the person!
The main vbgy on a person selling himself is that the okug ka ubucr
wants a person to be an scg exclusively to Him not to anyone else.
Even though today a person is not officially sold as a slave, a person
should live his life with the goal of doing the wv iumr to the best of his
ability. If for example, a person 24 hours a day is thinking & working to
try to make more money & in the process he neglects his ,uhbjur, he
feels he doesn’t have time to be vru,k oh,hg gcue or time to daven
properly,[Really things don’t stop at his ,uhbjur; they affect his ,uhnad
too. If a person gets so engulfed in his business or whatever else he
puts his time into, he winds up neglecting his wife & children too. An
important part of lubhj is a person putting away time to spend with his
children.], a person must remember that the suxh of success in
everything is that the okug ka ubucr makes him successful. As long as a
person does the wv iumr, a person will never lose anything. To the
contrary, that is the only way to gain. If a person doesn’t leave himself
time for oav ,sucg, he is in turn making himself a slave to whatever
else he is putting his time into.
h"ar brings from the t,khfn that the reason that the vru, said to
give a vphry to a dog is because the okug ka ubucr does not deny
[deprive] a reward to any being. Therefore, since the dogs did not bark
at ktrah kkf when they left ohrmn, they were vfuz to get the ,uphry.
The wxu,v hkgcn ohbez ,gs says a different reason. A dog protects a
person’s ,unvc from becoming ,uphry i.e. being devoured by wolves.
So to show cuyv ,rfv, you give the dogs those animals that do
become ,uphry. The tas ,utbn wants to learn that perhaps the
reason of the t,khfn & that of the ohbez hkgcn wxu, ,gs are not
arguing. The ohbez ,gs is talking about people who own dogs that
protect their flock from wolves. Then it is a yuap rcs that there is a
ihbg of cuyv ,rfv to give them the vphry animals even if they would
have barked by ohrmn ,thmh. The t,khfn is talking about someone
who doesn’t have such a benefit from dogs protecting his flock or if he
doesn’t even own a dog. Then I would think that there is no reason for
such a person to give the ,uphry to a dog. That is what the t,khfn is
teaching us. Since the dogs didn’t bark at anyone from ktrah kkf by
ohrmn ,thmh, therefore the okug ka ubucr gave them the reward that all
of ktrah kkf gives them their ,uphry.
The reason why the vrhcg of vchbd is more runj than any other type of
ehzn, that if he can’t pay, then s"c sells him for an scg, is because
there are many opportunities that a person has to steal & be r,hv vrun
that he is not doing anything wrong. Since it is done in a hidden way,
the ezhv is not so apparent. For example, if he steals from someone rich
in order to give to someone poor. But if someone punches someone
else, even if you think that person deserves it, the act itself is not a
proper one. In order not to come to be lenient regarding this, the vru,
was more rhnjn to show how damaging it really is. The same could be
understood why untu uhct kken gets a more abug runj than hitting.
Hitting, everyone understands is damaging & wrong, however people
don’t realize the power & damage they can cause with their speech.
The hbunjbh vnv recounts that rpux iugna wr once had a jufhu with a
rnun. The rnun asked, the vru, says ihg ,j, ihg which the rnun
understood meant that if icutr knocks out iugna’s eye, then the
punishment is to knock out icutr’s eye. The rnun said such a
punishment is only given in barbaric lands. How could the vru,, that
you claim is from wv, give such a punishment? rpux iugna wr told him
you are learning the euxp wrong. I will show you that yap yuap in the
euxp is that one is to pay money for the worth of the eye that was
damaged, not to knock out the other person’s eye. The kkf is, the vru,
always first says what a person did wrong & then gives the punishment
for it. For example, the vru, says ,nuvu wudu kkeh hf. Here, the way the
rnun is learning the euxp, it comes out the vru, is first saying to give
him the punishment of knocking out his eye & then explaining the
reason for it; that he knocked the other person’s eye out first. The
correct way to learn the euxp is the first time it says ihg, it is referring to
what was done wrong, which is an eye was knocked out. The
punishment for that is ihg ,j, pay money in place of the eye.
We see how important it is to be cuy rhfn & to respect other people &
their possessions. In the ,ufz of being ezjn ourselves in this ihbg we
should all be
int///ubhnhc vrvnc ubesm jhan hbp hkcenn ,uhvk vfuz
h"b ktrah obc ka ,hrcv kg u,jpanu ohucbgztr aubhhbc ihnhbc wrk "cuy kzn"
ROSENBERG
;xuhk o,c ,xurt kg u,jpanu LEVINE ovrct wrk "cuy kzn"
H‰E ISYN LARsY ÂR TB ABYL N‰EL
LXR TB OYRML HMYLw HAWPR TWKZL U‰XLDBY W
LDNYYRB TB IYYRB HQBRW HAL IB QYZYYA QXCY
Parshas Mishpatim Parshas Shekalim 5773 G‰EwT UBw U‰K OYLQw/OYUPwM ÂP
Volume 15 – Issue 17
I’m positive!
Please learn this week’s issue
as a merit for a Refuah
Shelaima for
Print, e-mail, and share
Migdal Ohr with friends
and family.
Y‰N
You’ll be glad you did.
E-mail Subscribe to
and
[email protected]
A publication dedicated to Harbotzas Torah
©2013 – J. Gewirtz
Did You Know?
The Torah tells us that we must
be holy people and a treifa, an
animal that is not Kosher because
it has some wound or puncture,
must not be eaten, but thrown to
the dogs. Why the dogs?
The Daas Zekainim M’Baalei
HaTosfos explains that dogs
generally watch the sheep. When
a wolf came to attack the flock,
the dog fought mightily to protect
them but, unfortunately, he was
unsuccessful and a sheep was
mauled by the wolf, making it a
treifa.
It is incumbent upon us, says the
Daas Zekainim, to show
appreciation for the dog’s efforts
by giving him this animal which is
no longer fit for human
consumption.
This makes sense, but why does
this make us ‘holy’ people?
Perhaps we can understand that
even if this time the dog fell
asleep at his post, and did not
protect the sheep, leading to one
being attacked, we do not allow
this one failure to negate all the
good the dog did on other
occasions.
It is human nature to say, “What
have you done for me lately?”
Here, the Torah teaches us that if
we want to be holy people, an
elevated nation, then we must
look at the positive and
appreciate what we’ve gotten,
instead of focusing on where one,
even a dog, fell short.
Thought of the week:
A positive attitude may not
solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to
make it worth the effort.
HXEM IB EwWHY
EwWHY OHRBA
(BK:AKTWMw)
ÂYXT LUYG TB HWX HRs
Sponsored by the Maltz Family
‰OYLLPB ITNW HwAH LEB WYLE TYwY RwAK wNEY wWNE IWSA HYHY ALW HYDLY WACYW ...WCNY YKW ‰
“When men will fight and will jostle a pregnant woman and she will miscarry but
there will be no fatality, he shall surely be penalized when the husband of the woman
shall impose upon him, and he shall give it through judges’ orders.” (Exodus 21:22)
With so many cases of damage and penalties, this one stands out because it seems that it
is not automatic, but only when the husband of the injured woman makes a claim. Then, it
sounds like he gets to determine the amount of the damages, but the Torah informs us that
it is done according to the assessment of the judges of Bais Din.
The basic reason for mentioning the husband here is to teach us that he is the one to make
the claim, not the woman, even though she is the one who lost the unborn child. This
would make sense if we were talking about a married couple, and within marriage the
husband acquires what his wife makes or acquires, but the halacha that he is the plaintiff
applies even if he is not married to the woman, but is the father of the miscarried child. The
money for damages goes to him and not to her because of his relationship to the child.
This can teach us a deeper lesson about parenting and valuing a child.
The Ramban writes that there are commentaries who explain that the fellow has a choice.
He can either negotiate a settlement with the ones who caused the miscarriage or they can
go to Bais Din and let the court decide. The Ramban says this is not accurate. The source
for this supposition, though, is the fact that this damage is not clearly recognizable.
Though, of course, it is clear that she miscarried, since the Torah considers damages to be
based on the murdered person’s value as a slave, there is no guarantee that this unborn
child would successfully mature, be born, and live long enough to be considered a viable
human being. Therefore, this punishment is not a direct law, but rather a fine, imposed on
the one who caused the miscarriage,
This fine is demanded by the father who wants his children and to whom they are
important. To someone else, this unborn child was nothing, but to the father, he
represented the fulfillment of hopes, dreams, and aspirations for a son or daughter who
would grow to be a valuable member of society and a servant of HaShem. He would be
the chance for the parent to be immortal and succeed in life more than he could on his
own. Therefore the court must step in and temper the ruling by being fair in the
determination of damages.
The underlying message is that we, as parents, must constantly seek out the good in our
children. We must encourage them to excel and fulfill their potential, even when they have
not yet reached the age or level of maturity when they can begin to do so.
By seeing the potential greatness in our children, and fostering their growth in becoming
who they are meant to be, we acquire a stake in their future, and fulfill our roles as parents.
Shmuel Yoel’s father was disappointed that his son didn’t take his studies seriously. He
was always clowning around and did not want to learn Torah. Frustrated, his father, seeing
his hopes and dreams for his son fading away was upset and took to calling his son a
‘gornisht,’ a nothing, at every opportunity. This constant name-calling was so hurtful that
the young man took to wearing it as a badge of pride when he defied his father.
When he became a comedian in Manhattan, the young ‘gornisht’ took on the stage name
“Zero” so he could prove to his father that he was not a gornisht.
Perhaps if his father had tried to figure out what he could do to help and encourage his son,
Shmuel Yoel (Zero Mostel) might have become a Rabbi like his father had hoped.
‫בס"ד‬
An East Side Torah Center publication
www.estorahcenter.com
‫כתובות ה ← יא‬
‫פ' משפטים תשע"ה‬
This edition is dedicated ‫לעילוי נשמת עזריאל זעליג בן חיים זאב ז"ל‬
As participation in an integrated Bavli-Yerushalmi learning program, endorsed by HaRav HaGaon R' Chaim
Kanievsky ‫שליט"א‬, continues to grow, we wanted to do our part to encourage more people to explore this
relatively neglected part of our Holy Torah. The purpose of this publication is to spark further interest in the
Yerushalmi in the context of a brief review of some material learned in the past week's Daf Yomi. It is not to be
used for halachic conclusions. To sign up for the weekly newsletter, e-mail [email protected].
The Amora Rebbi Elazar says that if someone claims ‫פתח פתוח מצאתי‬, he is believed to prohibit his wife
upon himself (8b-9a). Rashi explains that the circumstance under discussion is one where there is no way to
ascertain whether there was blood, such as if the bed sheet was lost. (See the Ran who argues, bringing a ‫ראיה‬
from the Yerushalmi (3a) that the husband would be believed even if ‫ דם‬was found.) However, being that there is
no proof other than his word, he cannot deprive her of money owed due to her ‫כתובה‬. Tosafos (‫ ד"ה נאמן‬:‫)ט‬
disagrees, asserting that R' Elazar holds that the woman would lose her ‫כתובה‬, but notes that the Yerushalmi (2b)
appears to support Rashi's opinion.
The Gemara asks why the claim of ‫ פתח פתוח מצאתי‬is effective. After all, there is a double doubt (‫ספק‬
‫)ספיקא‬: Perhaps she became a ‫ בעולה‬prior to ‫אירוסין‬, in which case she would remain permitted to her husband.
And even if she became a ‫ בעולה‬after ‫אירוסין‬, that does not mean she committed anything willingly (‫ ;)ברצון‬perhaps
she was raped (‫ )נאנסה‬and is just too embarrassed to reveal it (see Tosafos ‫ ד"ה ואי בעית אימא‬and the Maharsha
there).
The Gemara answers that indeed, in the vast majority of cases, she would remain permitted to him; R'
Elazar was referring to two cases: 1) The wife of a Kohen, and 2) The wife of a non-Kohen, whose father married
her off under the age of three. For the former, the ‫ ספק‬of whether she was raped is irrelevant, because the wife of
a Kohen would be prohibited even in a circumstance of rape (Kesubos 51b). For the latter, the ‫ ספק‬of whether she
became a ‫ בעולה‬prior to ‫ אירוסין‬is irrelevant, because her ‫ בתולים‬would have regenerated upon turning three years
old (Niddah 45a); the fact that she is now over three and has no ‫ בתולים‬is a clear indication that she became a
‫ בעולה‬after ‫אירוסין‬. In both cases, only one ‫ ספק‬remains, and the rule of ‫ ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא‬is applied.
Regarding the case of the girl who was married off by her father, Tosafos (‫ )ד”ה ואי בעית אימא‬asks why her
presumption of being permitted to her husband (‫ )חזקת היתר‬would not be enough to permit her even in the
presence of merely one ‫( ספק‬whether she acted ‫ ברצון‬or was ‫)נאנסה‬. They answer by referring to a principle in the
Yerushalmi (1b)–"‫”קול יוצא לאנוסה‬, word gets out about such events. In most cases of ‫אונס‬, people hear about what
happened, and being that no rumors had been circulating that this woman was ‫נאנסה‬, we view her as being more
likely to have done something ‫ברצון‬. This likelihood (‫ )רובא‬overpowers the ‫( חזקת היתר‬see Kiddushin 80a).
Interestingly, the Yerushalmi itself takes this principle a step further, stating that one who claims ‫פתח פתוח‬
‫ מצאתי‬would be believed to prohibit his wife upon himself even in the case of a non-Kohen who married a girl over
the age of three. Thus, according to the Yerushalmi's approach, even in a situation where there would have been a
‫ספק ספיקא‬, the idea of ‫ קול יוצא לאנוסה‬removes the ‫ אונס‬consideration.
Incidentally, on the topic of ‫ בתולים‬regenerating, there is an oft-cited Yerushalmi in our ‫ מסכתא‬which
teaches that the entire ‫ בריאה‬is directed by the laws of the Torah. Rebbi Avin says that if a girl turned three in Adar
and subsequently lost her ‫בתולים‬, and then ‫ בית דין‬decides to add an additional Adar that year, her ‫ בתולים‬will
regenerate in Adar Sheni (4a [‫)]פ”א סוף ה”ב‬.
For sponsorship or dedication opportunities, please call 212-473-1000