HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
                      Edited by Shlomo Katz

                        Parashat Ki Tisah
                    Volume V, Number 20 (206)
                  16 Adar 5751 / March 2, 1991

                        Parasha Overview

   This week's Parasha continues the description of the utensils of
the Mishkan, and then relates the episode of the Golden Calf, one
of the darkest moments in Jewish history.  It is indeed difficult
to understand how Bnei Yisrael could err so.  Ibn Ezra explains
that the vast majority of Bnei Yisrael never intended the Calf as
an idol.  Early in man's history (in the generation of Enosh, a
grandson of Adam) man came to believe that G-d would be honored if
His servants were worshipped as well as He.  Thus man began to bow
to the sun and the moon.  These early idolators meant well, but
they erred.  Similarly, after Moshe's presumed death, Bnei Yisrael
felt that they could never approach G-d directly, but needed an
intermediary to whom they could relate.  This, they believed,
incorrectly, would honor G-d.  (Michtav M'Eliyahu, I p.274)

               ***********************************

   "Hashem, Hashem, the G-d who is Merciful and Generous, etc." 
(Sh'mot 34:6)
   R' Yehuda said:  A covenant has been made between G-d and
Yisrael that the "13 Midot" [Attributes of Mercy" listed in the
above verse] will never go unanswered.  (Rosh Hashana 17a)
   The verses containing the 13 Midot have been incorporated into
many parts of our liturgy, notably into the "Selichot" recited from
before Rosh Hashana until the end of Yom Kippur.  We recite these
verses with confidence - derived from R' Yehuda's statement quoted
above - that our prayers will be answered.  And yet, sometimes they
are not.  How can this be?
   R' Aharon HaKohen, the son-in-law of the "Chafetz Chaim",
explains based on the Talmudic description of the covenant made
regarding these verses.  "R' Yochanan said:  The verses teach that
G-d wrapped Himself in a Talit (so-to-speak) and taught Moshe the
13 Midot.  G-d said, 'Any time that Bnei Yisrael perform these
attributes before Me, I will forgive their sins'."  G-d did not say
that any time these verses are recited before Him, He will answer. 
The attributes of G-d described in these verses must be emulated by
Yisrael, i.e. they must be "performed."  In Chazal's words, "Just
as He is Merciful, so you should be merciful, just as He is
Generous, so you should be generous, etc."
   This may be better understood by means of the following parable
(told by the Chafetz Chaim):  A poor villager once came to the town
where his rich uncle owned a thriving manufacturing business.  The
nephew immediately proceeded to the factory and asked his uncle for
a job.  "Certainly," said the uncle, "I will hire you on a trial
basis, and if you do well I will give you a well-paid, permanent
position."  The manufacturer then outlined the tasks that his
nephew could do.  "Do this job during the first two hours of the
day, then do a certain other task for two hours.  Take some time
for lunch, and then complete the day by performing a third job." 
To be sure that his nephew would understand his instructions, the
businessman wrote them down.  
   Three months passed, and the manufacturer met with his nephew to
discuss the latter's progress.  "I read and reread your
instructions many times every day until, by now, I know them by
heart."
   "But how much work did you actually do?"  asked the uncle.
   "As I told you," replied the nephew, "I have memorized your
instructions.  I can repeat them to you verbatim.  Isn't that what
you wanted?"
   We can easily imagine the rich uncle's reaction to his nephew's
news.  Of course the nephew could not now expect either a permanent
job or even payment for the three months that he spent at the
plant.  
   Similarly, Hashem has given us - in the 13 Midot - a list of the
tasks that we must perform in order to merit G-d's favor.  We do
not perform those assignments merely by reading the list, but only
by carrying out their charge. 
                    (Chesed L'Avraham:  "D'rush Bet Shel Chesed")

              ************************************

   "Thirty days before Pesach we begin to inquire about the laws of
Pesach."  (Shulchan Aruch O.C. section 429:1, based on Pesachim 6a. 
Our edition of the Talmud states:  "We inquire about and lecture on
the laws...")
   Most commentaries understand the Talmud's statement as an
imperative, but Rabbenu Nissim does not.  In his commentary to
Hilchot Rif (Pesachim 2a) he writes that during the thirty day
period preceding Pesach, one who asks a question about the laws of
Pesach is considered to be asking a "relevant question" (Sho'el
k'inyan").  This is important because of the law that if two
questions are asked of the Rabbi, he should first answer the one
which is timely and relevant, and only then answer the other
question.  In other words, before this thirty day period, no
special deference is given to a Pesach question over any other
question, while during this period such questions should be
answered more promptly.
   R' David HaLevi notes an interesting consequence of the Talmud's
injunction that the laws of Pesach be studied 30 days before
Pesach.  The Gemara (Baba Metziah 97a) states that one who borrows
an animal can escape the onerous liabilities that would ordinarily
be placed upon him in the event that the animal died or could not
be returned.  The way to do this is to "borrow" the animals owner
as well.  For example, says the Gemara, when one borrow's another's
ox, let him ask the ox's owner for a drink of water, thus
"borrowing" him as well.  Then, if the animal later dies, the
borrower need not repay it.  [Unfortunately, a full discussion of
this law is beyond the scope to this article.]
   The Gemara further records that Rava's students observed:  "Our
master (Rava) is lent to us."  Rashi explains that they implied by
this statement that if they were to borrow Rava's cow, the above
law would apply because they were also "borrowing" Rava's services
as a teacher.
   Rava replied:  "To the contrary, you are lent to me, for I use
you to review my studies by repeating them in your presence.  The
proof that you are in my service and not vice-versa is the fact
that I, and not you, decide what tractate we will study."
   The Gemara concludes that both Rava and his students were
correct.  All year long, they are in his service because he can
teach whatever he chooses and they must go along.  However, during
the month before Pesach, since he must teach the laws of Pesach and
he may not alter the curriculum, he is considered to be in their
service.
                                (Turei Zahav, O.C. section 429:1)
   Reminder:  As always, nothing in HaMaayan should be relied upon
in practice.  All Halachic questions should be referred to a
competent Rabbi.

               ***********************************

                      "Sinai V'Oker Harim"
                        Breadth vs. Depth

   The Gemara relates that when R' Yehuda died, two sages were
nominated to replace him as Rosh Yeshiva of Pumpedita.  One was
Rabbah bar Nachmeni, the other, Rav Yosef (Berachot 64a and Horiyot
14a, as elaborated on by Rashi and other commentators.)  Unable to
choose between the two, the scholars of Pumpedita sent the
following query to the scholars of Eretz Yisrael:  "Between a
'Sinai' and an 'Oker Harim', which is preferable?"  Given a choice
between a scholar who knows the entire Torah as it was given at Har
Sinai, but whose analytical abilities are less than those of some
other scholars, or a scholar who can "uproot mountains" ("Oker
Harim") with his sharp intellect, but who has not mastered the
entire Torah, which would make a better Rosh Yeshiva?
   The reply came back:  "The Sinai is preferable, for even one who
has much money has need of one who has stored much wheat."  Just as
one who has vast wealth has nothing if he cannot find wheat to buy,
so sharp analytical skills are of no use if one has no data to
analyze.  R' Yosef, the "Sinai", was therefore appointed Rosh
Yeshiva over Rabbah, the "Oker Harim".  (However, for personal
reasons, R' Yosef declined the appointment, and did not become Rosh
Yeshiva until after Rabbah's death 22 years later.)
   Why does one with broad knowledge make a better leader than one
with a sharp mind?  R' Sherira Gaon explains that Halacha must be
decided based on received tradition and not derived by clever
analysis, since the latter can always be refuted by equally clever
dialecticians.  One who has a large store of learned material can
answer in light of what earlier sages have decided. 
   [The story is told that R' Chaim Brisker (1853-1918), perhaps
the preeminent "Oker Harim" of the last century, once addressed a
Halachic query to R' Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, requesting that the
latter respond with only one word:  "Permitted" or "Forbidden." 
Why?  R' Chaim Brisker explained that if R' Chaim Ozer would
include his reasoning in the answer, he (R' Chaim Brisker) would
easily refute it.  On the other hand, if R' Chaim Ozer would
respond only that the action in question is permitted or forbidden,
R' Chaim Brisker would feel obligated to accept the decision of the
"Posek HaDor" (preeminent Halachic decisor of the generation). 
(Heard from R' Kalman Winter, Shlita.)]
   Rashi (Sanhedrin 42a) notes that even the "Sinai" is not
completely lacking in analytical skills, for he uses his broad
knowledge of Mishnayot and Halachot to fill gaps in one tractate
with relevant material from other tractates.  [In the Sages' words: 
"The words of the Torah are poor in one place and rich in
another."]  However, the "Oker Harim", more than the "Sinai",
devotes most of his energies to analysis and relatively little to
assimilating new material.
                     ********************

Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who 
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.

Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet