Today's Learning Pesachim 2:2-3 O.C. 25:10-12 Sponsored by Bava Metzia 18 the Koblin family Yerushalmi-- in honor of mother Pesachim 32 and grandmother Shaine Koblin A"H Hamaayan/The Torah Spring edited by Shlomo Katz PARASHAT MATOT-MASEI Vol. VIII, No. 39 (374), 1 Av 5754, July 9, 1994 In Parashat Masei we read that cities were to be set aside to be homes to the Levi'im and that these same cities would be the cities of refuge to which those who murdered unintentionally would flee. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita quotes the Sefer haChinuch which explains that the Levi'im were capable of influencing those who were removed from mitzvot without being influenced by them. This is why Levi'im and murderers were thrown together. The Levi'im of our day, i.e., the Torah scholars (see Rambam, end of Hil. Shemittah), must be careful in this regard, Rav Sternbuch continues. While they must engage in outreach, they must protect themselves from harmful influences. It is related that a certain community once asked the Chazon Ish whether a certain scholar would be an appropriate Rabbi for them. He responded affirmatively. However, when that very same scholar asked the Chazon Ish's opinion about the community, the sage advised the scholar not to accept the post. That which is good for the community, he explained, is not necessarily good for the individual, for he may be affected by harmful influences. [Note, incidentally, how each time the Chazon Ish was asked for advice, his answer considered only the best interests of the one asking the question.] (Ta'am vaDa'at) ************************************ "If a man takes a vow . . . he shall not desecrate his word." (30:3) The mishnah (Avot ch.4) teaches, "Do not question a person about his vow at the moment that he makes it." Rashi explains that one should not say, "If you phrase the vow in such-and-such a way, a Rabbi will be able to annul it later." Do not do this, Rashi says, because vows often are made in a moment of anger. If you point out the loopholes (literally, "openings") to the angry vow-taker he may retort, "No! I mean my vow to be complete, with no openings." If he does that, he will be bound forever. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach shlita explains further: The type of "loophole" or "opening" which allows a Rabbi to annul a vow is an unforeseen circumstance. [For example, where one vows not to enter a certain building, and his son later marries in that building.] Logic might dictate that one should ask the vow-taker, "Do you mean it? What if such-and-such circumstances arise which will make your vow difficult to keep?" This would ensure that the person who seeks annulment answers the Rabbi's questions truthfully. If we wait until the new circumstances actually have arisen, the one bound by the vow will have a motive to answer untruthfully. Nevertheless, we do not ask the question. Why? We see, Rav Shlomo Zalman explains, that the "opening" is not the key element in the annulment. The key is regret. Even though regret alone is not enough of a basis to annul a vow, regret and an "opening" are enough. Therefore, so long as the person did not state explicitly that his vow encompassed even these new circumstances, it does not matter whether he might have said so. His regret shows that he took the vow--whatever its content--only out of anger; releasing him, therefore, does not constitute desecrating his word. (The "opening" is simply required to discourage frequent vow-taking.) (She'elot uTeshuvot Minchat Shlomo 30) ************************************ "For you are coming to the land of Canaan. . . ." (34:2) The midrash asks: "Why did Canaan merit to have the land named after him? Because when he heard that Bnei Yisrael were coming, he left." Specifically, the tribe known as the "Girgashi" resettled in other lands. This seems backwards, notes Rav Yitzchak Goldwasser shlita. When they left, it ceased to be their land! However, the explanation is as follows: The gemara (Berachot 35a) teaches that the world belongs to G-d, but it is given to man after he recites a blessing acknowledging that everything comes from G-d. (This is why we recite berachot before eating.) As long as the Canaanites lived in the Land, it was not clear whether they recognized G-d's ownership of it, and it therefore was not given-over to them entirely. However, when the Canaanites vacated the Land so that G-d could give it to Bnei Yisrael, they demonstrated that they did recognize G-d's control. Therefore, the Land became theirs, and was named after them, retroactively. (quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov) ************************************ "[T]he six cities of refuge that you shall provide for a murderer to flee there, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities." (35:6) The Torah is eternal, notes Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apta zatz'l. What practical lesson does this verse teach us today, when there are no cities of refuge? If a person is killing his soul through his unintentional sins, he should achieve repentance by sacrificing himself entirely to the service of G-d. The requirement of self-sacrifice for Hashem is found in the shma. The first verse of that prayer has six words; the rest of the first paragraph has forty-two words. (Ohev Yisrael) ************************************ In Hamaayan for Parashat Emor, we alluded to the dispute between Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov and Rav Naphtali of Ropshitz over whether the Jews should support Napoleon in his war against Russia. Rav Mendel of Rimanov expressed the wish that Napoleon succeed--"even if he advanced from L'vov to Rava [two cities] ankle-deep in Jewish blood, for we know that the birth-pangs of mashiach are bitter as wormwood." Rav Naphtali retorted enigmatically with an expression borrowed from Tractate Keritot (6b), "A third and a quarter we have not heard." The Klausenberger Rebbe, Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam zatz'l (who passed away three weeks ago, on the 10th of Tamuz, after seventy years as a chassidic rebbe) explained that the dispute between these two sages was the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua (Sanhedrin 97b) regarding the role which repentance plays in the final redemption. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the redemption will come only as a result of repentance. Rabbi Yehoshua says that if the Jews do not repent, Hashem will send another Haman against them and force them to repent. Rav Mendel held that Napoleon was this "Haman." He believed that Napoleon would cause the Jews to repent and mashiach would come. Rav Naphtali responded, "I have never heard of a Jew who is so estranged that he is only 'one-third' or 'one-quarter' of a Jew, but who repents because of suffering." He therefore felt that there was no purpose in Jewish blood being spilt. (Sukkat Bet Ropshitz p.18 note 38) ************************************ DONATIONS TO HAMAAYAN ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE