Shemot
Shemot, 23Tevet 5773
The Path of Levi’s Ascendance
Harav Yosef Carmel
Struggles between brothers are a recurring theme in Bereishit. Examples include Kayin and Hevel, Shem and Cham, Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaakov and Eisav, and the rivalry among the sons of Yaakov. The latter rivalry was ostensibly decided at the end of Bereishit. Yosef’s prophetic dreams were fulfilled, as Yosef’s brothers were subservient to him. Yaakov confirmed Yosef’s special status in the blessings he gave at the end of his life (see Bereishit 49:27) and determined that Ephrayim would be dominant among Yosef’s children. Moshe Rabbeinu confirmed this a few generations later (see Devarim 33:16-17).
The big “losers” (for lack of a better word) in the question of who would have prominence in the family/nation were Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. None of them got a positive individual blessing at the end of their father’s life, and they were actually scolded. Reuven lost the status of leader by virtue of his being the biological firstborn, despite the valiant repentance he did for his sin. Yaakov asked to distance himself from Shimon and Levi because of his great abhorrence for some of their actions (i.e., the slaughter of the people of Shechem and the sale of Yosef).
Yet, in our parasha, the Torah begins the story of Moshe Rabbeinu with “An ish (man) from the House of Levi went and took the daughter of Levi.” Throughout Tanach (in the narrative, not the halachic sections) ish is used to describe an important person, who is a leader on some level. Examples include Elkana, the father of Shmuel (Shmuel I, 1:1), and Mordechai (Esther 2:5). In the case of Amram, Chazal tell us that he was the leader of his generation (Shemot Rabba 1). Thus, we see a surprise, that the mantle of leadership did make it to the hands of Levi despite his apparent relegation to the list of the disfavored. Let us see how this happened.
During the end of the story of Bereishit and the emergence of Moshe Rabbeinu, the leadership was in the hands of the Sons of Ephrayim. They continued the connection to Eretz Yisrael, even as they were princes in Egypt (see Divrei Hayamim I, 7:20-24). They also were the ones who tried to return Bnei Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael prematurely (see Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Beshalach). This was based on the legacy they received from Yosef, who was praised as being one who always mentioned his connection to the Land. Because the Sons of Ephrayim tried to force the redemption before the time had come, a new leadership sprang forth.
The zealous Levites grabbed the mantle of leadership. They focused their energies on preserving the uniqueness of the family/nation and preventing assimilation in the foreign land. They did not do this by attacking others, but by internal strengthening. The midrash stresses the connection between the children of Amram and the care not to assimilate. “The three types of olah sacrifices correspond to the three good leaders that Hashem gave the people in Egypt: Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam. Others say that it corresponds to the three good characteristics the people had in Egypt, in whose merit they were liberated: that they did not change their names, did not change their language, and were careful in matters of illicit relations (Bamidbar, Naso 13).
Let us pray that we too will merit internal peace between brothers and leaders like Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam.
This edition ofHemdat Yamim
is dedicated
to the memory of
R' Meir
ben Yechezkel Shraga
Brachfeld o.b.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
Eretz Hemdah
Deans: Harav Yosef Carmel, Harav Moshe Ehrenreich
2 Bruriya St. corner of RavChiya St. POB 8178 Jerusalem 91080
Tel: 972-2-5371485 Fax: 972-2-5379626
Email: web-site:
Donations are tax deductable according to section 46 of the Israeli tax code
American Friends of Eretz Hemdah Institutions
c/o Olympian, 8 South Michigan Ave., Ste. 605, Chicago, IL60603, USA
Our Taxpayer ID #: 36-4265359
Heating Up Microwaved Rice on Shabbat
by Rav Daniel Mann
Question:I cook rice in the microwave. On Shabbat, I want to heat it up on the hotplate. Besides the regular questions of reheating, is there a problem because the first cooking was irregular?
Answer:We will begin by looking at a precedent regarding non-standard cooking. The gemara (Shabbat 39a) says that it is permitted to “cook” a food in the sun on Shabbat. The prohibition of cooking is when something is cooked by heat that emanates from some sort of fire (Shabbat ibid.). Rashi (Shabbat 39a) says that the leniency is because it is not normal to cook in the sun. The Igrot Moshe (Orach Chayim III:52) says that because of the abnormality, we cannot extend the prohibition from the cases of cooking in the Mishkan, which are the model for what is forbidden. Others disagree, based on another gemara (Pesachim 41a), which says that just as there is no Torah level violation of Shabbat to cook meat not through fire or its by-product (e.g., hot springs) so there is no prohibition of eating Korban Pesach meat that was so cooked. Since it is the result, not the process that is important regarding Korban Pesach, the Avnei Nezer (OC 163) and Minchat Shlomo (I, p. 105) say that Chazal must have posited that the unusual process produces a result that is different from standard cooked food.
The Pri Megadim (OC, Mishbetzot Zahav 318:6) briefly discusses whether it is permitted to put something that has been cooked in the sun through a conventional cooking process on Shabbat. His context is the machloket of the Rishonim on whether it is forbidden to cook (in liquid) on Shabbat something that was baked (dry) before or vice versa. We rule stringently but not conclusively (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 318:5; Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 1:(180)). The Pri Megadim’s case has elements of both stringency and leniency in comparison. On one hand, there the food already underwent a halachic cooking, whereas here it has not. On the other hand, cooking something baked and vice versa makes a discernable change, which might not be the case when repeating basically the same process in a “halachic manner.” The Pri Megadim’s leaning is that there is certainly not a Torah violation and it is likely permitted, apparently based on the idea that the cooking process is (fully) forbidden only when it changes and/or improves the food (see Rambam, Shabbat 9:3).
If we equate microwave cooking to cooking in the sun, your question is equivalent to the Pri Megadim’s. However, that equation deserves evaluation. With the advent of microwaves, the question arose whether it is as a new-fangled but essentially standard form of cooking or whether it is a new application of Chazal’s non-halachic fireless cooking. (Problems of the use of electricity basically preclude the use of a microwave on Shabbat in any case.) The Igrot Moshe (ibid.) claims that since microwave cooking is now a normal form of cooking, it is derivable from the Mishkan. While the context of his ruling was to be stringent (not to cook), which is easier to do than to rule leniently (see Rashi, Beitza 2b), he probably considers microwaving to be cooking regarding the halacha that there is no problem of cooking thereafter. In fact, all might agree that the results of microwaving are more similar to regular cooking than cooking in the sun is and permit reheating such food with a standard heat source.
Some people like rice crispy, and the relatively high heat of many of today’s hotplates can accomplish that. Doing so is a problem even for normally cooked rice, as this is a significant act of baking after cooking (see Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 1:60). If one makes sure it will not become crispy, that should suffice for our case as well.
If one wants to be stringent (see uncertainty in Tzitz Eliezer X:62; Yalkut Yosef 318:(19)), he can bake the rice in a regular oven after taking it out of the microwave, to make sure it is halachically cooked before Shabbat (see Be’ur Halacha to 318:5). Five minutes,a nominal cooking process, should suffice. If one likes the rice crispy, this should be done on Friday (see Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 1:71).
“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
Extreme Physicality and Extreme Spirituality
(condensed from Ein Ayah, Berachot 9:225)
Gemara: Rava also said: The world was created only for Achav ben Omri and Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. This world was created for Achav, and the World to Come was created for Rabbi Chanina.
Ein Ayah: One’s love for himself and one’s love for the welfare of the collective (klal)are somewhat contradictory. When a person dedicates himself to self-advancement, his love and concern for the collective is likely to decrease. When he advances in his love of the klal, his concern for his own interests will decrease. It would actually be best if one would have a full love of himself and not allow that to impinge upon his concern for the klal. This would reveal a great light and bring great results for goodness and the ways of Hashem.
We see that Achav had a heaping portion of self-love, which he used in a wicked way. This finds particular expression in the story of Navot, where Achav hired false witnesses to have Navot killed and have his property confiscated by Achav so that he could obtain Navot’s beautiful field. To the other extreme, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa exemplified nullifying one’s personal desires and having concern only for the needs of the klal. This is as the gemara says (Berachot 17b) that the whole world was provided for in the merit of Rabbi Chanina, and he sufficed with one kav of carobs per week.
Each of these historical examples is one half of the story. Ideally, it is proper for one to have a healthy portion of love of himself in his heart, as this is fundamentally a very positive thing. The only problem is that practically, until the world is in a more ideal state, we must avoid too much self-concern, because it pushes away concern for the klal. If we could have the self-concern while preserving a level of concern for others on Rabbi Chanina’s level, this would be ideal. The gemara means, though, that the world was created for the two types of concern, of Achav and of Rabbi Chanina, one that is at the basis of this world and one that is at the basis of the World to Come. If the two traits can be combined, great things will come out of it.
When one combines the traits properly, the love of the physical side will enable him to bring significant progress to the state of the physical world for the betterment of its inhabitants. This will work properly only if the person has the same level of concern for the world as one with small personal physical aspirations. An ideal person of that type will have such a strong affinity toward the spiritual to the point that people would think that he does not care about his physical situation. This is what will exist of the World to Come, where things will be ideal both from a physical and a spiritual perspective.
We are so used to positive values being contradictory to each other, as they so often are in practice, that we do not always try to combine them. However, we should try to improve ourselves until it will be possible to do so. We should increase our wisdom, strength of character, and resolve until both physicality and spirituality will lend strength to the other, enabling us to enhance the world in a broad and significant way. When peace can be made between these apparently conflicting characteristics, Hashem will be happy with His creation and will be known as possessor of both heaven and earth.
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)
Listening to a Non-Kosher Witness
(an excerpt from Hemdat Mishpat, rulings of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Case: The plaintiff wanted to bring as a witness an agent who worked for the defendant. The defendant requested that beit din not allow the agent to testify because he is unfit to testify in this case for several reasons. Firstly, the agent is at odds with the defendant, and they are in the midst of adjudication. There is also a claim that the witness has been involved in criminal activity. He also is claimed to be a nogeiah badavar (one who has an interest in the outcome of the adjudication at hand), for if it is discovered that he acted without authority in this case, he may have to pay for that action.
Ruling: Despite the aforementioned, beit din decidedto hear the witness’ testimony even if it were determined that it does not have the standing of kosher testimony. Beit din just has to be careful not to accept the testimony as direct grounds to decide the monetary issue.
The basis for this approach is the idea we see in the poskim that there is no prohibition to hear testimony from one who is not fit. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:2) cites two opinions on whether one can force a relative to testify. The context is when one makes a cherem (ban) to make all witnesses testify, and the question is whether a relative or even a litigant must testify. Admittedly, the opinion that they are not required is the main one. However, it is apparent that the only question is whether they are required to come, but clearly if they step forward, there is no problem to listen to them. This is despite the fact that their testimony could not possibly be directly responsible for apportioning payment to one side or the other.
What, then, can be gained by the testimony? The Rambam (Sanhedrin 21:10) writes, in explaining that a dayan should not help a litigant, that when one witness testifies against a litigant, beit din should not say that beit din does not accept one witness [for payment]. Rather they should say: “The witness testified against you,” with the hope that the litigant will admit that the witness testified accurately or not challenge him. The Haghot Oshri also describes the practice of having unfit witnesses testify as a special rule of batei din to uncover the truth (see Halacha Psuka (Eidut p. 54)).
Our experience shows that there is a lot to be gained from bringing such witnesses, as it helps greatly to uncover the truth. It forces the litigants to relate to details of the case in light of the testimony in a manner that beit din and the other litigant would not succeed to do without the testimony.
In this case, the witness actually confirmed much of the defendant’s, not the plaintiff’s, version of the story, and in many of the points, the plaintiff did not question that which was said.
In summary, whatever the exact benefit that can come out of it, beit din may allow the sides to call people to testify, even when they are halachically unfit, even though the testimony cannot be relied upon.
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.