Hamaayan / The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Bereishit Volume 22, No. 1 24 Tishrei 5768 October 6, 2007 Sponsored by The Parness family in memory of Anna Parness a"h The family of R' Yochanan Eliezer ben R' Yaakov Chaim Hakohen Katz a"h in commemoration of his 39th yahrzeit on Erev Sukkot Today's Learning: Sanhedrin 2:3-4 O.C. 25:4-6 Daf Yomi (Bavli): Ketubot 35 Daf Yomi (Yerushalmi): Sukkah 22 With gratitude to Hashem and prayers for His continued blessing, we now begin the twenty-second parashah cycle of Hamaayan. R' Chaim Yeshayahu Hadari shlita (rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Hakotel in Yerushalayim) quotes several chassidic thinkers who write that, as we read through the cycle of Torah readings each year, we are called upon to discover a new message appropriate to the period in history in which we live. R' Yitzchak Meir Alter z"l (the first Gerrer Rebbe, referred to as the "Chiddushei Ha'rim") taught that this is the message of the verse (Devarim 32:7), "Understand the years of generation after generation." In this vein, R' Hadari attempts to identify a message in each parashah connected with the Shemittah / sabbatical year, in which find ourselves now. He writes: The over-arching theme of Tanach as a whole, with some books excepted, is that G-d created Eretz Yisrael, gave it to us, and then took it away from us when we sinned. Rashi z"l comments at the very beginning of Bereishit that this is the purpose of the book that we are beginning. As we read in Tehilim (111:6), "He declared to His people koach / the might of His works, in order that He might give them the heritage of the nations." Commenting on the verse in Kohelet (9:10), "Whatever you are able to do with your koach / might, do it," the Zohar says that "koach" refers to the neshamah. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense; would King Shlomo really tell us that anything we have the power to do is okay to do? Rather, he means that man should be guided by his spiritual potential and do everything he can to actualize the might within his neshamah. In Tehilim (103:20) we find the phrase, "Gibborei koach / Mighty warriors, who do His bidding, to obey the voice of His word." Our Sages say that this refers to those who exhibit spiritual strength by observing the laws of the Shemittah. Based on these uses of the term koach, we can understand Rashi's comment to our parashah in a new light. The verse, "He declared to His people koach of His works, in order that He might give them the heritage of the nations" does not mean only that He created the Land and can give it to any nation that He pleases. It also informs us of the great spiritual potential that G-d placed within creation, through which we can merit to receive and hold on to Eretz Yisrael, including through the observance of shemittah. (Shabbat U'moed Ba'sheviit p.133) ******** Why doesn't the cycle of parashot begin on Rosh Hashanah? Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year and the anniversary of the creation of man. Why then do we not begin and end the Torah-reading cycle on Rosh Hashanah? R' Mordechai Jaffe z"l (prolific author known as the "Ba'al Ha'levushim"; died 1612) writes that this is one of the things we refrain from doing in order to "confuse the satan." Were we to read Bereishit on the anniversary of creation, the satan would know for certain that that day is Rosh Hashanah. (Levush Ha'chur 581:1) This requires further explanation, writes R' Menachem Mendel Schneerson z"l (the Lubavitcher Rebbe; died 1994). There are a number of things we do to "confuse the satan," for example, not blowing the shofar on the day before Rosh Hashanah and not announcing the imminent arrival of the month of Tishrei on the preceding Shabbat as we do before the other months. But what does it mean to confuse the satan"? The satan is an angel and presumably is not so gullible! In any case, how many times can the satan fall for the same tricks? R' Schneerson explains: The job of the satan is to act as the prosecutor when we are judged on Rosh Hashanah. When we attempt to "confuse" the satan, what we actually are doing is making him uncertain as to whether we have already finished repenting - thus we do not need to blow the shofar on the day before Rosh Hashanah. If that were the case, there would be no point to his prosecuting us. Alternatively, perhaps we have no intention of repenting - thus we ignore the opportunity to begin the Torah anew on Rosh Hashanah. If that were the case, he would not need to prosecute us for we will effectively guarantee our own demise. Of course the satan knows that our refraining from blowing the Shofar and from reading Bereishit are based on longstanding customs. Nevertheless, these customs represent real possibilities, and it is those possibilities that confuse the satan. Moreover, in the case of our not completing the Torah cycle on Rosh Hashanah, it is a fact that we are lacking that merit. (When a person refrains from doing a meritorious act, regardless of the reason, the result is that he lacks that merit.) The fact that we seem not to care about this confuses the satan because it could mean either that we do not need that merit - having already repented - or that we simply don't care - because we have no plans to repent. (Sha'arei Ha'moadim: Rosh Hashanah ch.5) ******** "The woman said to the serpent, `Of the fruit of any tree of the garden we may eat. And, of the fruit of the tree which is in the center of the garden, G-d has said: You shall neither eat of it nor touch it, lest you die'." (Bereishit 3:2-3) Rashi z"l writes that Chava added to G-d's command, for G-d had not commanded Adam not to touch the tree. The next verse states: "The serpent said to the woman, `You will not surely die'." Rashi explains that the serpent pushed Chava until she touched the tree. He then said to her, "Just as there is no death in touching it, so there is no death in eating it." R' Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky z"l (the Steipler Gaon; 1899-1985) asks: How did Chava fall for the serpent's trick? If she in fact added to G-d's command, then when the serpent pushed her into the tree and said, "Just as there is no death in touching it, so there is no death in eating it," she should have responded, "Well, actually, I made that up." Furthermore, we read in verse 6, "And the woman perceived that the tree was good for eating and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a means to wisdom, and she took of its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her and he ate." This verse seems to indicate that Chava's actions had nothing to do with the arguments offered by the serpent! R' Kanievsky explains: Chava knew that Hashem had never commanded Adam not to touch the tree. However, she believed that that was His intent. What should have happened when the serpent pushed her into the tree and she did not die? She should have said to herself, "I must have been mistaken in my understanding." Why did she not come to this realization? Because she "perceived that the tree was good for eating and that it was a delight to the eyes . . ." R' Kanievsky concludes: This is one of the common strategies used by the yetzer hara. The yetzer hara rarely attacks our commitment to Torah observance head-on, for that would be futile. However, when the yetzer hara can cause us to question our beliefs and assumptions, it is well on its way to causing us to sin. Thus, our response when one of our beliefs is challenged must be, "The problem is my lack of knowledge or understanding. The problem is not with the belief itself." (Quoted in Me'orei Ohr on Avot D'Rabbi Natan p.399) ******** "And having driven out the man, va'yashken / [G-d] stationed mi'kedem / at the east of the Garden of Eden the keruvim and the flame of the ever-turning sword . . ." (Bereishit 3:24) Why does the verse use the word "va'yashken" rather than the more common "va'yanach" / He placed? R' Menachem Simcha Katz shlita (Brooklyn, N.Y.) explained that although G-d expelled man from Gan Eden, once man repented, G-d remained man's "shachen" / neighbor as mi'kedem, which in addition to meaning "at the east of" can also mean "as before." ******** Shemittah In previous issues, we described how an Otzar Bet Din (literally, "treasury of the judicial court") is used to distribute food to consumers during the shemittah year. Briefly, farmers declare their fields hefker / ownerless, allowing any person to harvest the produce, and the bet din then hires those same farmers to gather and market the produce. This complies with the requirements of the shemittah because the farmers do not restrict access to their fields and do not make a profit off of the fields. It also guarantees a livelihood for the farmers. Although the Otzar Bet Din concept is widely used, it is not mentioned at all in the Talmud. The oldest known reference to an Otzar Bet Din is in the Tosefta (Shevi'it ch.8). The Tosefta (literally, "Addendum") is a Talmudic-era work, but is not part of the Talmud and is not authoritative; indeed, in many places, the correct wording of the Tosefta is in doubt. Also, not only is Otzar Bet Din not mentioned in the Talmud, it is not mentioned in Rambam's halachic code, the Mishneh Torah. For these reasons, a minority of contemporary halachic authorities dispute the legitimacy of the Otzar Bet Din concept. In contrast, the majority of poskim (halachic authorities) do recognize the legitimacy of the Otzar Bet Din. While it is true that the Talmud does not mention the concept, the Tosefta is, in fact, considered authoritative so long as it does not contradict the Talmud. And, while Rambam (Maimonides) does not mention Otzar Bet Din, the leading authority of the next generation, Ramban (Nachmanides), does discuss it. To explain why the Rambam omitted the laws of Otzar Bet Din from his code, some commentaries note that the relevant passage in the Tosefta is worded as a story ("A long time ago, bet din would appoint agents . . .") and not as a law that was actually practiced at the time that Tosefta itself was written. Thus, Rambam may not have considered it to be fitting material for a code of law. Leading 20th century authorities who approved of or even encouraged Otzar Bet Din included R' Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l, R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld z"l, R' Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz z"l (the Chazon Ish), R' Zvi Pesach Frank, R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach z"l, among others. As will be discussed in future issues, some of these authorities also permitted the Hetter Mechirah / selling the land to a non-Jew as an alternative means of avoiding shemittah prohibitions. However, even R' Kook, who is most closely associated with the Hetter Mechirah, wrote that the Otzar Bet Din is the preferable method of gathering and distributing produce [presumably because a farmer who enters into an Otzar Bet Din arrangement is in fact observing the laws of shemittah, not just avoiding prohibitions through the technicality of having sold the land]. (Based on: R' Yerucham Fishel Adler, Otzar Bet Din pp.16-20)