Hamaayan / The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Mishpatim Volume 23, No. 18 27 Shevat 5769 February 21, 2009 Sponsored by Eli, Rachel Adina, Daniel Avraham, Yonatan and Chana Rutstein in honor of the birthday of wife and mother Galit Rutstein Dr. and Mrs. Jules Meisler in memory of Jules' mother Anne Meisler a"h and sister Gladys Citrino a"h Elaine and Jerry Taragin on the yahrzeits of Mrs. Shirley Taragin a"h, Mr. Irving Rivkin a"h, and Mrs. F. Rivkin a"h Dr. and Mrs. Robert Klein on the yahrzeit of his father Meyer ben Kalman, Milton Klein a"h The Katz family on the yahrzeits of Yitzchak Zvi ben Chaim Hakohen Katz a"h and Avraham Abba ben Avigdor Moshe Hakohen Katz a"h Today's Learning: Keilim 1:8-9 O.C. 281:1-282:2 Daf Yomi (Bavli): Bava Kamma 55 Daf Yomi (Yerushalmi): Kiddushin 19 King Shlomo writes in Mishlei (24:23), "These things, too, are for the wise [to consider]: Showing favoritism in judgment is not good." Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher z"l (Spain; 14th century) writes: From the beginning of the book of Mishlei until here, King Shlomo addresses himself to simpletons and youths. Indeed, he announces at the beginning of the book (1:4) that his intention is, "To provide simpletons with cleverness, a youth with knowledge and design." Now, he turns to the wise and says, "Showing favoritism in judgment is not good." In truth, the Torah already prohibits a judge from showing favoritism (see Devarim 1:17). However, King Shlomo adds that there are negative consequences from showing favoritism. In Mishlei 24:24, the verse after the one with which we began, he writes, "One who tells a wicked person, `You are righteous,' -- the peoples will curse him, the nations will hate him." Even more so, adds R' Bachya, will people hate a judge who does the opposite, i.e., he condemns an innocent man. R' Bachya continues: King Shlomo wrote, "Showing favoritism in judgment bal tov / is not good" rather than the more common "lo tov," in order to hint that the entire Torah, from the letter "bet" at the beginning ("Bereishit") to the letter "lamed" at the end ("Yisrael") is dependent on the honest administration of justice. This is the reason that the first mitzvah in our parashah is to bring disputes before batei din that rule according to the Torah and not before secular courts. ******** "V'aileh / And these are the mishpatim / laws that you shall place before them." (21:1) Rashi comments: "Wherever `aileh' / `these are' is used, it separates the preceding section from the section that is being introduced. Where, however, `V'aileh' / `and these are' is used, it adds something to the former subject. This is the case here: `And these are the laws.' Just as the Ten Commandments [in last week's parashah] were given at Sinai, so the laws in this parashah were given at Sinai. Also, why is this section dealing with the `civil laws' [as well as criminal laws] placed immediately after the verses commanding the making of the altar [at the very end of last week's parashah]? To tell you that you should seat the Sanhedrin / Supreme Court in the vicinity of the altar." R' Yechezkel Yaakovson shlita (Rosh Hayeshiva of Yeshivat Sha'alvim) asked: Would I have thought that the civil and criminal laws, which after all are part of the Torah, were not given by G-d at Sinai? Also, why indeed should the Sanhedrin be located in the Bet Hamikdash? He explained: Both of Rashi's comments are meant to teach that man's ability to grow in his relationship to G-d ("bain adam la'Makom"), represented by the revelation at Har Sinai and by the Temple, is dependent on his respect for the property rights and other rights of his fellow man ("bain adam la'chavero"). The Sanhedrin, the supreme arbiter of civil law and property rights belongs in the Temple because these two aspects of Torah are inseparable. This is illustrated by a remark of the Chafetz Chaim when he saw a man immerse himself in the mikvah in preparation for Shabbat and then dry himself on a third person's towel without permission. The Chafetz Chaim told that man, "You may have immersed in the mikvah, but you have not purified yourself for Shabbat; in fact, you are dirtier now than you were before." There is a deeper message as well. We read in Tehilim (147:19-20) and recite in our daily prayers: "He tells His word to Yaakov, His chukim / religious laws and mishpatim / civil laws to Yisrael. He did not do this for any other nation, and mishpatim -- they do not know." Is this true? I would understand if the verse said, "Chukim / religious laws -- they do not know," but don't all societies have civil and criminal laws? R' Yaakovson explained: Among societies, civil and criminal laws exist to promote social stability. In the absence of property rights etc., societies could not function. However, that is not the purpose of the mishpatim in our parashah. The mishpatim do not exist to protect your neighbor, but rather to promote your own spiritual growth. That is, indeed, a type of mishpat (singular of mishpatim) that the nations do not know. For example, halachah says that a burglar must, in certain circumstances, pay double what he stole. Not so an armed robber, who pays at most the equivalent of what he stole. Isn't an armed robber a bigger threat to society than a burglar, since the former is ready to kill, while the latter avoids confrontation? Maybe, but that is not the concern of the mishpatim. Mishpatim view a burglar as a greater sinner, for a burglar, who steals stealthfully, seems to fear man more than he fears G- d. Not so an armed robber; he may not fear G-d, but at least he does not place man on a higher plane than he places G-d. (R' Yaakovson added parenthetically: This of course does not mean that the Torah is unconcerned with society's well-being. That is why there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, for halachah gives the king the power to legislate for society as he sees fit.) (Heard from R' Yaakovson 24 Shevat 5767) ******** "Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Yisrael ascended. They saw the G-d of Yisrael . . . Against the great men of Bnei Yisrael, He did not stretch out His hand - they gazed at G-d, and they ate and drank." (24:9-11) Rashi explains that the elders "looked" at the Shechinah without the proper reverence - indeed, while they ate and drank. R' Akiva Sofer z"l (rabbi of Pressburg, Czechoslovakia; died 1960 in Yerushalayim) offers another explanation. He writes: Moshe was on the mountain for 40 days and nights, and he ate nothing the entire time. How was this possible? He became so attached to G-d that he was oblivious to any physical needs. Instead, the spiritual sustenance that his soul drew from his closeness to G-d was sufficient to sustain him. In contrast, the elders achieved great closeness to G-d, yet they did not allow the experience to change them. They remained attached to their physical beings, and that was a sin. (The fact that they sinned is implied in the words, "Against the great men of Bnei Yisrael, He did not stretch out His hand" - apparently, they were deserving of having His hand outstretched against them.) When a person has an opportunity to attain a higher spiritual level, and he lets the opportunity pass him by, he has sinned. (Da'at Sofer) R' Ben Zion Rabinowitz shlita (the "Biala Rebbe") offers yet another explanation: Hashem commanded that no one but Moshe ascend to the top of Har Sinai. Most people were not permitted to even touch the mountain. Aharon was allowed to ascend part way, as were Nadav and Avihu and the elders, but each one only to his own level. The very reason that Hashem established such boundaries was to teach that a person should not try to reach a higher spiritual level than he is prepared to attain at that moment. This is alluded to by Rashi in his comment on the verse (19:6), "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; these are the words that you shall speak to Bnei Yisrael." Rashi comments: "These are the words - no more and no less." The "no more" part of this statement means that a Jew should not attempt to attain more spiritually than he is ready for, writes R' Rabinowitz. The elders did not understand this. "They gazed at G-d, and they ate and drank." Instead of "gazing" with proper reverence, they did so lightly, as if they were eating and drinking. This improper attitude resulted from their not preparing themselves for the experience. In contrast, when Moshe first gazed at the Shechinah, it says (Shmot 3:6), "Moshe hid his face, for he was afraid to gaze towards G-d." (Mevaser Tov: Sha'arei Avodat Hashem pp. 10 & 60) ******** This Week in History, Halachah, and Minhag The following relates to Parashat Shekalim which is read this Shabbat. One is not required to review the haftarah "shnayim mikra v'echad targum" / "twice in Hebrew and once in translation," as one would review the parashah during the week. However, it is customary to do so [every week]. (Rema, O.C. 285:7). Terumat Hadeshen (Part II, No. 101) explains that the purpose of this review is to know what the haftarah says. In contrast, Mishnah Berurah (285:20) writes that the reason for reviewing the haftarah is so that one will know how to read it properly if he is called for the maftir aliyah on Shabbat. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah (42:60, n.233) notes some practical differences between these reasons. If one did not review the haftarah before it was read, then, according to the first reason above, he should review the haftarah later, just as one who does not review the parashah must make it up. Also, in a shul where the haftarah is read from a parchment and the same person reads every week (with the maftir only reciting the blessings), Mishnah Berurah presumably would not require that the haftarah be reviewed by every person, while Terumat Hadeshen presumably would. R' Yosef Yozpa Han Norlingen z"l (16th century), writes: "I am uncertain of what to do regarding the haftarot of the Arba Parshiyot [i.e., whether to review them or to review the haftarot of those weeks' sidrot]. I have been accustomed to review the haftarah of the week's sidrah because otherwise it would be abandoned in a corner. However, I do not insist that you accept my opinion." (Yosef Ometz * 561.) Among those who did accept R' Yosef Yozpa's practice were Chida (Avodat Hakodesh: Moreh B'etzba * 132), the Chatam Sofer (Minhagei Chatam Sofer 4:2) and R' Chaim Meir Hager z"l (the Vizhnitzer Rebbe) (Edut B'Yehosef: Chanukah p. 107). On the other hand, Mishnah Berurah (285:20) requires one to review the haftarot of the Arba Parshiyot.