The Importance of Amalek

Beshalach

Beshalach, 15Shvat 5773

The Importance of Amalek

Harav Shaul Yisraeli – from Siach Shaul, pp. 226-227 (an address in 1943)

“Amalekcame and battled with Israel in Refidim” (Shemot 17:8). The midrash says that the word Refidim hints at the fact that Isarel had weakened their hands from involvement in Torah (Tanchuma 25). The next section of the Torah is that they left Refidim and traveled to Sinai (Shemot 19:2), where they, of course, prepared themselves for receiving the Torah. As Rashi (ad loc.) comments, “Just as they came to the SinaiDesert with repentance, so did they leave Refidim with repentance.”

One of the strongest questions we would seem to have on the Creator of the Universe is why he needed to create Amalek, a nation so corrupt that it cannot be salvaged through improvement but must be destroyed. In historical hindsight the answer is clear. Both the original acceptance of the Torah and the reacceptance of the Torah at the time of Mordechai and Esther came in proximity to an encounter with Amalek. “Just as praise of Hashem emanates from the righteous in Gan Eden, so does it emanate from the wicked in Gehinom” (Shemot Rabba 7:4). By wiping out Amalek, there is as much sanctification of the Divine Name as by elevating the righteous, and the two elements actually complete one another.

The universalistic side of the Jewish People causes us to sometimes blur the boundaries. We love people, and, therefore, we try to not give ourselves credit for being unique. The first promulgators of erasing nationalities were Jews. The first fighters for civil rights were Jews. Jews are at the forefront of universalism. These aspirations cause these Jews to try to deny who we are. We find it so difficult these days to hate other nations, even when a child would be able to see why it is appropriate to do so.

We make a mistake. One can feel unity without erasing distinctions. Humanity can be like one organism and still have different tasks assigned for different “parts of the body.” If each part of the body is doing the same thing, then the organism is missing functions. It is, therefore, important at times to remind the Jewish People that we are unique and different from the nations. If, after a certain quiet period, we might think that we can bridge over the differences, Amalek comes to remind us that we cannot. “This is whom you wanted to join with?” After this wakeup call, we are ready to accept the Torah once again.

And this is happening these days. After we thought there is nothing unique and separate about the Jewish People, we have found our modern-day Amalek. Who knows what form the new acceptance of the Torah will be after Amalek is conquered?

Hemdat Yamim
is dedicated
in memory
of
HaRav Professor
Reuben M. Rudman
ob”m / Hemdat Yamim
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
of Chicago, Illinois
in loving memory of
Max and Mary Sutker
and
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l / This edition of
Hemdat Yamim
is dedicated
to the memory of
R' Meir
ben Yechezkel Shraga
Brachfeld o.b.m

Wearing a Reflective Armband on Shabbat Without an Eiruv

by Rav Daniel Mann

Question:May one wear a reflective armband on Shabbat where there is no eiruv so cars will be better able to see him at night?

Answer:There are two categories of objects/situations one can have on his body without violating carrying on Shabbatwithout an eiruv: 1. Begadim derech malbush (clothes worn normally); 2. Tachshitim (adornments or accessories) (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301 at length). The category of tacshit includes things that are placed on the body to help the body function properly (see Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 18:11), including slings, arch supports, glasses, etc.

The first thing we need to see is whether decreasing the chance of danger is a positive use regarding these halachot. The mishna and gemara (Shabbat 60-61) discuss the circumstances under which one can wear an amulet in the public domain. Rashi (ad loc.) explains that when used appropriately, an amulet “is a tachshit for an ill person, like one of his garments.” Not only is that true when used for healing, but warding off illness from those susceptible to it justifies wearing it as well (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:26). Thus, wearing something that can reduce the chance of getting hit by a car, Heaven forbid, e.g., in a dark area without traffic lights and/or sidewalks, is legitimate. On the other hand, two distinctions challenge the proof from this and similar sources.

One distinction is that the amulet protects a person from within, whereas a reflector helps in regard to an external danger (cars). Nevertheless, logic dictates that the source of the danger should not make a difference in this regard (L’horot Natan VIII:18).

A stronger distinction is that regarding the amulet, one is “using” the amulet on an ongoing basis. In contrast, sometimes one wears the reflector for a long walk in which only a short time will be in a dark, dangerous place. What is the status of the reflector the rest of the time? The Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata (18:16) and Yalkut Yosef (301:32) say that one should not wear reading glasses, which one often carries in his pocket, because of the rabbinic concern that he may take them off and carry them. Why not state an intrinsic problem – reading glasses are not used while on the street – as theOrchot Shabbat (28:127) claims? Apparently, the fact that they are generally usable and/or will be used later is sufficient. Even the Orchot Shabbat may agree that it is sufficient for it to be useful sometime during this walk.

There are indeed many cases of tachshitim that, intrinsically, should have been permitted to wear, but the Rabbis were concerned that people would take them off in the middle or they might fall and be carried. It is difficult to determine when we apply this rabbinic concern and when not, and there may be additional reasons for leniency here (see below).

Our case is somewhat reminiscent of the badges Jews were required to wear by law (centuries before the Nazis y”s). The Rama (OC 301:23, based on the Ohr Zarua II:84) says they could be worn but only if they were attached (not necessarily sewed) to the clothes. The reason given for leniency is that one wears them all week long and would not dare take it off (see Mishna Berura ad loc.) – logic that does not fully apply here. The Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata (new edition18:25), says that one is permitted to wear reflective belts on Shabbat, as it is considered a normal mode of dressing, and the Rabbis did not forbid because it is for protection. It is not clear, though, if an armband is considered a normal mode of dress.

We would certainly not tell someone who needs a reflective band for safety to not wear one. However, from a halachic perspective it is better to either: have one permanently attached to a real garment; to wear a reflective vest, which is a normal garment (even if it looks funny); or at least use a reflective belt (belts are semi-clothes, semi-accessories of necessity (see sources related to Rama OC 301:36)). If only an armband is available, one can be lenient.

“Living the Halachic Process”
We proudly announce the publication of our second book in English.
“Living the Halachic Process volume II” a selection of answers to questions from our Ask the Rabbi project. A companion CD containing source sheets for the questions is also available.

In honor of the book’s debut, we offer it at the special rate of $25
Special offer: buy both volumes for the price of $40.

Contact us at

Have a question?..... E-mail us at

Bitter Elements to Produce a Sweet Life

(condensed from Ein Ayah, Berachot 9:233)

Gemara: [At the time that Rabbi Akiva was dying a torturous death at the hands of the Romans], the angels said before Hashem: “This is Torah, and this is its reward?” The angels cited the pasuk (Tehillim 17:14): “To die by Your hand, to die at an old age.” Hashem answered [by citing the continuation of the pasuk]: “Their place is in [eternal] life”

Ein Ayah:Life, in general, is made up of a combination of many scenarios: scenarios of torment and of happiness, anguish and rejoicing. Only when all these experiences merge together do they adopt their true characteristic, and they are called “life.” One who is truly wise, who understands all the complexity of life, will not have difficulty accepting all the elements of life, including the difficult ones, because he understands that they form one tapestry.

For example, the dark of night, when viewed individually, is generally seen as an unwanted situation. However, when combining it with the light of day, so that night serves as a contrast from day, then it is a positive thing. Similarly, sorrow joins with joy to create a proper balance.

The greater a life is the greater its impact will be. It is clear that the goal of everything is goodness and a feeling of calm and spiritual delight. Sorrow, anguish, and bitterness exist just to serve as a contrast so that the value of goodness and sweetness will be that much more clear. It is understandable that one will look at all that transpires and view episodes of pain and not understand how Hashem could be behind them. However, Hashem is He who gives out life to all that live, and before Him all the secrets of life in all their depth are revealed. He knows that the pain is just like one seed of mustard or one granule of salt, which comes to spice a pot full of food. While it is sharp, without it the food would not be seasoned.

One has to look for an answer for the intellectually appropriate question: why must it be that in order for Torah to survive and flourish in Israel, special people have to accept horrible physical afflictions. This was the angels’ question of “This is Torah, and this is its reward?” Hashem’s very profound answer is that it is all are arranged according to the value of each person’s life.

In order for all to be balanced in the proper way so that there will be a complete picture of a complex life, there is a need for a bitter element. That element is horrible by itself but takes its part in making a wonderful life. This is as the pasuk (Tehillim 36:8) says: “How dear is Your kindness, Hashem.”

Responsa B'mareh Habazak, Volumes I, II, III, IV, V, VI and now VII:

Answers toquestions from Diaspora rabbis. The questions give expression to the uniquesituation that Jewish communities around the world are presently undergoing. Theanswers deal with a developing modern world in the way of “deracheha, darcheinoam”. The books deal with the four sections of the Shulchan Aruch, while aimingto also take into consideration the “fifth section”
which makes the Torah a “Torah of life”.
Special Price:$15 for one bookor
$90 for7 volumes of Responsa Bemareh Habazak (does not including shipping)

Returning Tuition When a Student Was Expelled – part I

(from Hemdat Mishpat, rulings of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

Case:A student was expelled in the middle of the year from a yeshiva for not living up to the minimum expectations of its staff. The yeshiva refused to return any tuition because of a clause in the contract between the parents and the yeshiva that states that if the student leaves the yeshiva after a certain date, the parents are not entitled to a refund. The two sides disagreed as to whether this condition applies even to a student who leaves because he is expelled or only to one who leaves of his own volition.

Ruling:There is a basic rule in the rules of interpreting documents that the person whom the document is supposed to serve has the burden of proof regarding doubts (Ketubot 83b). Rashi explains that this is connected to the rule that one who wants to extract money has to prove his claim. According to this reasoning, if the document in question is a shovar (literally, a receipt), which nullifies a debt, then the expansive interpretation of the document is actually supporting the one who is trying to use it hold on to his money. Therefore, the Ritva (Bava Batra 173a) says that in a case of doubt on a shovar, the holder of the shovar has the upper hand. While the Maharik disagrees, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 42:8) agrees with the Ritva that the shovar would exempt from payment broadly. Some Acharonim (see Aruch Hashulchan, CM 42:10) distinguish between cases as follows. If the original document is the cause of the obligation, an unclear shovar can cast aspersions on whether there is a basis for payment, and the person would be exempt out of doubt. In a case where there is a clear, independent obligation, a doubtful shovar cannot undo the assumed debt. When there is circumstantial evidence that indicates which interpretation of the document is logical, all should agree that we follow that evidence even when the literal terminology is unclear (see Maggid Mishneh, Malveh 27:16) and Bach (CM 42:8).

In our case, the clause of the contract that discusses the effect of the student’s leaving the yeshiva is neither exactly like a regular document nor like a shovar. However, it is more like a shovar, in that there is an existing obligation to pay tuition and there is a question as to under what circumstances there is an exemption. After carefully analyzing the language and circumstances of the clause, beit din believes that it was meant to extend the obligation on the parents after their son is no longer attending the yeshiva only if the student decides to leave the yeshiva on his own, not if he is expelled.

On the other hand, the parents already paid, so they need to use the document to actually extract money, which, we have mentioned, is more difficult. It is therefore, appropriate to decide what the halacha would be in a case where there is no indication from the document and progress from there.

[Next time we will continue from here.]

Mishpetei Shaul

Unpublished rulings by our mentor, Maran Hagaon HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt”l

in his capacity as dayan at the Israeli Supreme Rabbinical Court.
The book includes halachic discourse with some of our generation’s greatest poskim.

The special price in honor of the new publication is $20.

Do you want to sign your contract according to Halacha?

The Rabbinical Court, “ Eretz Hemdah - Gazit ”

Tel: (077) 215-8-215 Fax: (02) 537-9626

Eretz Hemdah - Gazit serves the public in the matter of dispute resolution
according to the Halacha in a manner that is accepted by the law of the land.

While drawing up a contract, one can include a provision which assigns

the court jurisdiction to serve as an agreed upon arbitrator.

Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to
Jewish communities worldwide.