Talmidav Shel Aharon
11-5768: Mitzvot N-3 & 4
January 1, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 4 – It is a negative commandment that Hametz (leavened food) is not eaten on Pesach.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “and no leavened bread shall be eaten.” (Ex. 13:3)It is even forbidden to derive any benefit from it. If someone eats an olive’s amount on Passover – if deliberately, he would deserve Karet; if unwittingly, he should have to bring a sin offering. It is all one whether a person eats it or dissolves it and drinks it. If someone eats less than an olive’s amount of it, he should be given whiplashes of disobedience. It is in force everywhere, at every time, for both men and women.

Negative Mitzvah 5 – It is a negative commandment to eat no mixture with Hametz on Pesach.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall eat nothing leavened.” (Ex. 12:20) Whether it became mingled with its own kind, or if it becomes mingled with food that is not of its own kind, if there is an olive’s amount of Hametz in a quantity of food that can be eaten in the same time as half a loaf of bread, this prohibition is violated by eating it but there would be no punishment of Karet. If there is not an olive’s amount of Hametz in a quantity of food that can be eaten in the same time as half a loaf, he who eats it should be beaten with whiplashes of disobedience. It is in force everywhere, in every time, for both men and women.

In last weeks lesson, we talked about Hametz that could not be in one’s possession. Now we are talking about Hametz that is actually eaten. It is not enough to get rid of it so that it cannot be seen. It is also forbidden to eat Hametz or to derive any benefit from Hametz that is to be eaten.
Let me also offer a reminder that Hametz is anything made from wheat, oats, rye, barley and spelt that has been allowed to ferment for more than 18 minutes. Matzah is usually wheat that has been quick baked at a high temperature with less than 18 minutes from the time the water first touches the flour.
The first difference we encounter in these laws is if the person who did the eating did it deliberately or accidentally. If deliberately, then the person is liable for the punishment of Karet. Maimonides defines “Karet” as the complete extinction of the soul.” The implication is that this person’s soul will not live on in any afterlife, but will become extinct from this world and the next. It is NOT a human punishment, but one that can only be administered by G-d. Some may say that this is really no punishment at all since it has no effect on the violator’s current life and comes to play only after death. The reality is that Karet is about a punishment between a sinning human being and G-d. How it plays out is beyond our understanding. The Sages considered it to be a terrible punishment that was far worse than any punishment in the human arsenal.
The next question is why should someone who eats Hametz accidentally have to bring a sin offering? After all, it was an accident! The purpose of a Sin offering is to alleviate the guilt feelings of committing a sin accidentally. It is a reminder that we need to be careful in our observance of the law.
The next question is about the amount of the Hametz eaten. The minimum size of the amount eaten is an olive’s bulk. This is about 25-30 cubic centimeters (there is disagreement as to the equivalencies in Talmudic measurements) or about one ounce. If one eats less than an olive, then it is almost inconsequential. If more, one has violated the prohibition. If one eats less than an olive but deliberately, then he gets punished for disobedience since the only reason that he ate such a little amount was to get around the law. While we are talking about the total amount of Hametz consumed, even if the amount was dissolved in juice or water, it is still Hametz and the above rules apply.
What happens if we mix the Hametz with other types of food so that it no longer looks like Hametz? What happens if we mix it with grains that are prepared in accordance with the Laws of Passover or mixed with other types of food that are also permitted on Passover like apples or meat? The laws of mixtures would say that any substance that is mixed with Hametz is forbidden on Passover subject to some size restrictions. If the olive’s amount is mixed with an amount of food up to the size of half a loaf of bread (this is Passover so we are talking about half a piece of Matzah) then the law has been violated. If the olive bulk is mixed with a larger quantity, then it is too diluted to be a violation of the law. The Talmud specifically notes that Karet would not be the punishment for this kind of mixing. The Hafetz Hayyim also points out that if the amount is less than an olive mixed with less than half a loaf of Matzah, if done deliberately, then the person gets whipped for disobedience. The Sages were not very kind to people who willfully violated the law but tried to avoid punishment by staying below the minimum. And accidental mixing is an accident, but if the mixture were willful, than even the smallest amount of Hametz would be forbidden. On Pesach we are very careful.
Note that these two laws, and the two from last week make it crystal clear that Hametz must be far removed from our possession for Pesach. We can’t eat it, mix it, own it, use it, derive any benefit from it or have it anywhere where we can find it. Because the Bible mentions it so clearly, the Rabbis made sure that it was far away from us during the Passover holiday. The only exception to all of this is if we actually sell the Hametz to a non-Jew for the holiday and he chooses to store the food in our homes. As long as we lock away that Hametz, it can be stored in our homes since it does not belong to us. This is why we arrange with our Rabbi to sell our Hametz for Passover so that it should belong to a non-Jew. This is a binding sale so the Rabbi has to make sure that it is done correctly. The non-Jew makes a deposit on the sale and the balance (assessed by weighing all the assigned Hametz and paying a price based on that weight) is due at the end of Passover. At the end of the Holiday, the non-Jew decides not to make the final payment so the sale is void, the deposit is returned and the ownership reverts back to the original owners. Any Hametz not sold in this manner for Pesach must be destroyed before the holiday begins and if any is missed for any reason, it cannot be used after the holiday and needs to be destroyed. It can no longer be sold for that would mean the owner derived benefit from it.
While the punishments are not in use today, we see by the punishments listed that this is a serious prohibition. We do not take it lightly. Hametz is forbidden on Passover and to eat it would endanger one’s soul!

Talmidav Shel Aharon
10-5768: Mitzvah N-2
December 23, 2007

Negative Mitzvah 2 – It is a negative commandment that Hametz (leavened food) is not to be seen in the domain or possession of a member of the Jewish People, the entire seven days of Pesach.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “and no leavened bread shall be seen with you.” (Ex. 13:7) It is in force everywhere, at every time, for both men and women.

Negative Mitzvah 3 – It is a negative commandment that Hametz is not to be found in a Jew’s domain or possession on Passover.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “Seven days leaven shall not be found in yoru houses (Ex. 12:19) If someone leaves Hametz in his home on Passover – for example, if he lets dough become leavened on Passover and leaves it in his home, or he buys Hametz and puts it away willfully, he is liable for lashes for two sins. (the prohibition of being seen and for being found) because he has done a physical act to violate them. But if he let Hametz remain on Passover from before Passover, not having destroyed it, while he violates the two prohibitions noted above, he would not be liable for lashes, since he did no physical act. If the Hametz of a non-Jew is found on the premises of a Jew, if the Jew has accepted responsibility for it he is obligated to destroy it. If he did not accept responsibility for it, there is no prohibition against keeping it since Scripture says, “no leavened bread shall be seen for you”. (Ex. 13:7) Yours you may not see, but you may see that of others. If, however, the non-Jew can sue the Jew for it according to a non-Jewish law, then even if he did not accept responsibility for it, he is duty bound to destroy it.
If Hametz has thus remained through Passover, it is forbidden to have any benefit from it, by the law of the Sages, as a penalty because the two prohibitions against it being seen and being found in a Jew’s domain, have been violated. Even if it was forgotten inadvertently, the Sages declared it forbidden. It is in force everywhere, in every time, for both men and women.

When the Torah says that all leavened products have to go, they really mean it. You have to remove it from your possession and remove it from your homes and business. You can’t see it, touch it or use it in any way. It is totally forbidden for a Jew to have any connection to Hametz on Passover.
This law applies as long as the Hametz does not belong to the Jew. We are permitted to see, and possess Hametz that does not belong to us. (Remembering that to eat such Hametz on Passover or any other day would constitute stealing from the non-Jew). It is this exception that permits us to “sell” Hametz on Passover to a non-Jew so that we do not need to remove it all from our homes. This sale on Passover is not a “legal fiction” it is a binding sale that allows the non-Jew to buy all the Hametz in our homes for a very small down payment with the balance due to the seller as soon as Passover is finished. Since the final payment is quite large, usually the non-Jew does not pay the final installment on time and forfeits the sale.
Punishment for seeing and owning Hametz depends on there being a willful act to bring the Hametz home. If it was left for Pesach by accident or if it is not his fault it has come into his home, than he still must remove it and destroy it and he cannot derive any benefit from it. He cannot sell it to a non-Jew or get a charitable tax deduction for giving it to charity. All of this is due to the declaration that is made before Passover begins that “all Hametz in my possession is declared to be ownerless and like the dust of the earth.” This applies to any large amounts of Hametz that the Jew is unaware of being in his possession, and to any small amounts of Hametz that may be a minor ingredient of some food that otherwise could be owned on Passover. Thus, Milk, that may have some accidental Hametz in it that is purchased before Passover, and unopened until the holiday begins (and after the declaration is made) can be served on Passover but new milk, purchased on the holiday itself, must be certified to be free of any traces of Hametz.
Before Passover begins, we must do a through removal of all Hametz, and then search for the last crumbs the evening before the Seder. (When Passover begins on Saturday night, the search is done Thursday evening and you should consult a Rabbi as to what to do with the Hametz you need to observe Shabbat.)
Any willful violation of the laws of Hametz are very serious infractions, they are violations of a commandment of the Torah. Hametz that remains unfound and discovered after Passover is over is to be destroyed and no benefit can be derived from it because of the declaration recited at the beginning of the holiday. This is an enactment of the Sages and not a Torah commandment.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
9-5768: Mitzvah N-1
December 18, 2007

Negative Mitzvah 1 – It is a negative commandment not to eat the sinew of the thigh-vein
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh-vein.” (Gen. 32:33) it applies to pure [kosher] domestic and untamed animals, and it applies also to an embryo – both to the right thigh and the left. There are two sinews: the inner one, near the socket of the hipbone is forbidden by the law of the Torah. The rest of the inner sinew, which is not about the socket, and the entire upper sinew, with the fat on them and on the sinew of the thigh-vein, along with the other sinews and membranes, are forbidden by the ruling of the Sages. If someone ate the sinew of the thigh-vein from a n’velah [an animal that died from a cause other than Kosher ritual slaughter] or from a t’refah [an animal that was mortally wounded or ill], he violates two prohibitions. (Eating forbidden meat and eating the thigh-vein) By the Oral Tradition we know that it is permissible to derive [other] benefit from the sinew. It is in force everywhere, at every time, for both men and women.

This entire prohibition is derived from the outcome of the wrestling match between Jacob and the mysterious opponent in the middle of the night. Jacob is wounded in this match and the text tells us that because he was wounded in the hip, we do not eat the thigh-vein to this very day. It is the third of only three Mitzvot that are derived in the book of Genesis.
There was a time when Kosher Butchers were very skilled and were able to remove the thigh-vein and the Rabbis permitted the hind legs of large mammals when they were killed properly. This is no longer the case. While there are a few butchers who are so skilled, modern kosher supervisors no longer permit meat from the hindquarter. This is part of the ongoing process of making Kashrut more and more stringent. Sometimes it seems as if everything that was once permitted, is now forbidden so that there should never be a question raised about the Kashrut of meat. It is a sorry state of affairs.
Note that there are two categories in this Mitzvah. One part is forbidden by the explicit command of the Torah and one is forbidden by a ruling of the Sages (in this case the Sages of the Talmud). Since it may not be clear exactly what the Torah has forbidden, they forbid all the veins in the hindquarter. Note that you can’t eat the thigh-vein from a non-kosher animal either, nor from a kosher animal that is killed improperly.
Finally, a note on the “Oral Tradition”. The Torah was given in written form to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Jewish tradition tells us that Moses also received an “oral tradition” at the same time (it would not take 40 days and night just to get a book. Moses spent the time learning the Oral tradition.). Since there are many ways of interpreting the written law, the Oral Tradition comes to tell us how the written law is to be applied. In our case, the written law says that we can not eat the thigh-vein. But does this also mean we can not derive any benefit from it? The Oral Tradition tells us that we can indeed benefit from it. This allows us to use the meat we cannot eat as food for other animals or to sell to non-Jews who are permitted to eat it. The money we raise from this sale can be used to support our family or to give to Tzedakah. If this were not permitted, the meat would have to be thrown away

Talmidav Shel Aharon
8-5768: Introduction to the Negative Mitzvot
December 10, 2007

On August 29, 2005, as the year 5764 was drawing to a close, I began a new volume of what we called then, “Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. I had spent the previous two years commenting on different aspect of Jewish Law. I had just returned from my three month Sabbatical and was ready to start something new with this list. In those days I was posting a lesson and sending it by Email to those who has subscribed. In the past 28 months I have left my position at Temple Sinai of Hollywood, started my new position at the Temple of Aaron in St. Paul and changed the name from “Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai” to “Talmidav shel Aharon. I also started posting the lessons to a blog so that the older lessons could be archived. I want to again thank my son, Eitan, for his help in showing me how easy it is to write a weekly blog.
Taking advise from my wife, Michelle, I decided to begin to introduce my students to the work of the Hafetz Hayyim, (for his biography see HMS 2,2 5755) in particular, his list of commandments that could be followed in our day. We are all taught that there are 613 commandments that Jews are supposed to follow. 248 are positive commandments (a number, according to the Sages is equal to the bones in a human body) and the other 365 are negative commandments (a number, according to the Sages, equal to the number of days in a solar year). These are a lot of commandments that G-d has placed on our shoulders, but Rabbis, including the Hafetz Hayyim, understand that most of these commandments are not possible to perform in our day and age. Some of them were only possible to perform when the Temple of Jerusalem was in existence. Since it was destroyed in 70 CE, we no longer can observe these Mitzvot. Some of them relate only to the land of Israel, and if we do not live in the land of Israel, we are exempt from these Mitzvot.
The Hafetz Hayyim chose to comment only on the positive and negative commandments that are still in force for all of us who are still living in the lands of our dispersion. We have just completed the 77th positive commandment concerning Amalek and with it we have finished the positive commandments. It has taken us about 2 1/3 years to complete this task. I can only add that positive commandments are in effect as long as there is no danger to our life or limb. In times of danger to our health, we are commanded to skip the positive Mitzvot until such a time as the danger has passed, and then we pick up where we left off. Hanukah is a great time to contemplate this. When the Maccabees recaptured Jerusalem from the Syrian-Greeks, the set out to re-purify the Temple and begin to worship there as they did before they were forced into the hills. When the Temple was ready to be rededicated, the looked to see what holiday they could celebrate in the middle of the winter. According to the Book of Maccabees, the last holiday they had missed was Sukkot, a seven day holiday with an eighth day holiday at the end. The Maccabees then re-lit the candelabra and celebrated Sukkot for eight days. This may be the real origin of our eight-day festival of lights.
Women also find that they are exempt from Mitzvot, which are positive, and time bound. This was a nod by the ancient Sages to women who have responsibilities that are not always bound by a set time or schedule.
In the second part of his book on the Mitzvot, the Hafetz Hayyim will cover 194 negative commandments. As if often the case with law, it is far easier to say what one cannot do than to say what is permitted. Since the 613 commandments have far more negative than positive commandments, we should not be surprised to find that there are more negative commandments in effect than positive ones still in effect. We should also note that there are far fewer exemptions from the negative Mitzvot than the positive ones. If G-d tells us that there are some things that we cannot do, than we just don’t do them. I should also note that because there are so many negative commandments still in effect, it is also not permitted to make up more of them. There are already enough things we are not allowed to do, we will be eventually called to account for the things we were permitted to do and yet forbid ourselves from doing it. This is to prevent false acts of piety and fanaticism. I can’t say that this is a perfect system, but it is the one we are working will.
Just a note, when I checked the archives, I noted that HMS 2.1 is dated 5755. That is a typographical error. It should read 5765. I will later change the blog archives to correct that error.
As always, if you know of someone who wants to read the lessons, feel free to send them the link to this blog or to write to me at hmsinai@aol.com and ask to be sent a reminder when new lessons are posted.
As always, your comments are welcome and will be added to the end of the lesson by the end of the week.

Thank you for your commitment to Jewish LearningRabbi K.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
7-5768: Mitzvah 76-77
December 4, 2007

Mitzvah 76 – It is a positive commandment to remember the action that Amalek took against us.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “Remember what Amalek did to you ” (Deut. 25:17This means to remember orally, in spoken words, his evil deeds and his ambush against us, so as to bestir our heart to hate him. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.

Mitzvah 77 – It is a positive commandment to decimate the descendants of Amalek.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek. (Deut. 25:19) However, we do not know who are the people of Amalek, until the prophet Elijah will come and inform us who they are; and then we will wipe out all remembrance of him from under heaven. May Hashem grant us to see the arrival of Elijah the Prophet and our righteous Messiah speedily in our time; Amen
All the positive commandments in effect at the present time have been completed, their number being seventy-seven.

And so the last two positive commandments are perhaps the simplest and the most difficult at the same time.
Who is Amalek? According to the Torah, the people of Israel fresh from their salvation at the Red Sea are crossing the desert on their way to Mt. Sinai and the Promised Land. Suddenly, the Amalekites attack our people without warning. According to Deuteronomy, they attacked from the rear, where the weakest and the stragglers could be found. Our people stand their ground and counter-attack and rout the Amalekites in a daylong battle. Moses then teaches that because they attacked in such a cowardly manner against the people blessed by G-d, G-d has ordained that the Israelites should remember that Amalekites must be destroyed once and for all, and none of them shall remain.
In the book of Samuel, it is recorded that the first Israelite king, Saul, is commanded to finish this work. It is to be a complete destruction; nothing of the Amalekites shall remain. Saul does part of the job, the men, women and children of the Amalekites are killed but he keeps the King alive and brings back the cattle for an offering to G-d. G-d is so angry that Samuel is to tell Saul that since he has disobeyed the commandment of G-d, then he will lose his kingship to someone else. From that moment on, it is all downhill for Saul.
One would think that if Saul did such a good job, than why would this Mitzvah still be on the books. According to the Rabbis of the Talmud, before the king of Amalek was killed by Samuel, he had a chance to impregnate one more woman. From this union descends every person who has ever hated Jews. Of course we can not prove this so we wait for Elijah, who will come just before the Messiah and let us know who needs to be killed to, once and for all, wipe the people of Amalek off the face of the earth.
Let us be clear. We have no idea who the descendants of Amalek are today so we have no right to kill anyone. That being said, we still have the stain of Genocide that needs to be addressed. As a people who have been slaughtered, men women and children, in genocide, it is hard to imagine that we are commanded by G-d to turn and do this to some other people. It is hard to contemplate a good G-d who would command such an action. It is hard to see this as a religious obligation that falls on our shoulders.
I can offer two answers to these questions. First, it is not right to put modern theology on ancient stories. Amalek and Israel were mortal enemies. Israel got the upper hand and wiped them out. That was war in ancient times and it is not the rules we fight under today. Jews have called many anti-Semites “Amalek” over the centuries, but we never again committed an act of genocide to complete this task. The Sages of the Talmud understood that there would always be people who hate us so they kept on the books the duty to remember those who have a senseless hatred of the Jewish people and to work to end their prominence in the world.
Second, that we must continue our work to end this kind of senseless hatred by remembering that, when those who hate us got the opportunity, they killed the innocent of our people, the weak and the stragglers. Such people do not deserve mercy but should be hunted down. We must not overlook their acts of terror and retaliate when the time is right, and never forget our duty to avenge these barbaric acts. We must not kill women and children and innocent bystanders anymore, but those who actively hate and kill, must be neutralized so they can no longer hurt us. It is a matter self-preservation. If we are worried about future generations of Amalekites, than we must wait for Elijah to show us who these haters are so we can deal with them appropriately. In this way Judaism addresses this kind of deep evil and attempts to root it out of Jewish life.
Finally, we come to the end of the positive commandments. Next we will begin, with G-d’s help, to explain the negative commandments. Perhaps, because of our studies, we will be privileged to see the arrival of the Messiah and the beginning of an era with no more war and bloodshed.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5768: Mitzvah 75
November 26, 2007

Mitzvah 75 – It is a positive commandment to make a parapet about one’s roof, and to remove every stumbling block and possible cause of accident from one’s house.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “then you shall make a parapet for our roof, that you shall not bring blood upon your house, etc.” (Deut. 22:8) Whoever leaves his roof without a parapet disobeys a positive commandment. So too with anything that constitutes a stumbling block, posing danger of death, such as a well or a pit. A barrier ten handbreadths high has to be made about it, and the barrier has to be strong enough to allow leaning on it without its collapsing. It is also forbidden to raise a bad [vicious] dog in one’s house. In Sefer Haredim, it is written, “When one bears this religious duty in mind every day, and sees if it requires any repair or improvement, it will be reckoned for him as though he fulfills the duty every day. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.

The Sages have taken a very simple law and expanded it into one of the most important teachings in Judaism. Let us first examine the law. In ancient Israel, most houses had flat roofs that served as a meeting place and even a sleeping place when the weather was good. If the weather was warm outside or too hot inside, families would gather on the roof to escape the heat. The parapet, the small wall around the edge of the roof was a safety measure, to insure that nobody would accidentally fall off. Clearly it has to be strong enough to lean against. A roof that had no parapet was a serious accident waiting to happen.
The Sages of the Talmud however, saw that this law as the basis for an entire corpus of safety legislation. The end of the verse from Deuteronomy, for the sages, clearly implies that anything that may bring “blood upon your house” had to be addressed with proper safety measures. If you dug a pit, you had to put a fence around it so nobody would fall in. The same would apply if you dug a well. If you had a vicious dog, you could not rely on the chain or rope to prevent an accident. One could not thus own a vicious dog, nor keep an ox that had a history of goring other people. If you could not restrain your vicious animals, you were liable for any damages they caused.
It is not a long stretch to see that all manner of safety needs can be added to this law. A Jew should not live in an apartment that does not have child guards to prevent a child from leaning on a screen and falling out the window. One should not live in a tall building without proper fire escapes, or smoke detectors or even carbon monoxide detectors if they are appropriate. You should not chain your doors shut or place bars on the widows without making fire escape plans explicit. The fire plans themselves are included in this law. Poisons in the home would have to be clearly marked and kept out of reach of children. And homes with small children should be “baby proofed”. One could even say that it includes a provision that would require all passengers in a car driven by a Jew to wear seat belts.
If the prime directive of Judaism is to preserve life, than clearly these safety rules are designed to do just that. To endanger life would be to violate this prime directive. Little wonder that the Sages expanded this law to include all manner of safety instruction. They felt that everyone was responsible for the well being of those who lived in or were visiting their home.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5768: Mitzvah 74
November 19, 2007

Mitzvah 74 – It is a positive commandment of “sending away from the nest.”
Hafetz Hayim: Which means that if someone finds a bird’s nest on the way, with the mother-bird sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, and he wishes to take them, he as to send away the mother-bird first and take them afterward; for Scripture says, “you shall surely send the dam away” (Deut. 22:7) and afterward, “and the young you may take for yourself.” (Ibid) The way to send it off is by taking hold of its wings and making it fly. If one sent it away and it returned, even many times, he is yet obligated to send it off. If it was flying about, if its wings touched the nest, he would have the duty to send it away; and if not, he would be free of any obligation to send it off. The requirement of “sending away from the nest” applies only to a pure (kosher) fowl, and one which is not prepared (not in his possession – which means that a person finds it on the way in some tree or on the ground); and specifically with fledglings which do not fly as yet and need their mother-bird, or with eggs that are not infertile and rotting. If a person transgresses and takes the mother-bird with the young, he is to fulfill the positive commandment and send the dam off. If he ritually slew the mother-bird or it died before he sent it off, so that he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment, he has thus violated a negative commandment. So likewise if someone came along and seized the mother-bird from his hand and sent it away, or it fled out of his hand without his knowledge (against his wish)- he is to receive whiplashes for violating the negative commandment, since he plainly did not observe the positive commandment. If he took the mother-bird and clipped its wings so that it could not fly and then he sent it off, he should be given whiplashes for disobedience, and he is to keep it with him until its wings grow back, and then he is to send it away. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.

The Torah is very clear on this law. That is why the Hafetz Hayim is so direct about it. It is one of the few laws in the Torah that have a reward for observance. The Torah insists that one who sends the mother-bird away will live a long life.
This is one of a series of laws that are part of the rules concerning “Tzar Baalei Hayyim” “Pain given to animals”. The Torah understands that if we are cruel to animals, than it becomes easier to be cruel to each other. A mother-bird will defend her eggs and fledglings, a sign that she has “maternal” concerns for her offspring. It would be cruel not to push the mother aside and take her eggs. It would be cruel to the mother bird, and an act of cruelty on out part if we fail in this task. If we can be so cruel to another animal, it is only fitting that such a person receives lashes for his or her insensitivity. Perhaps the pain suffered by lashes will help instill a kind of concern for the pain he or she causes others, human and animal. As an act of kindness to animals, we send away the mother-bird, we don’t cook a baby animal in its mother’s milk and we don’t yoke an ox with a donkey when plowing since the stronger one will have to drag along the weaker animal. We don’t even allow the muzzling of an ox on the threshing floor since to be working with the grain and not allowed to eat it would also be cruel to the ox. We have to be sensitive to the needs of our animals like we would want to be sensitive to the needs of those humans who work for us.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the way this law of the mother-bird was used for a larger problem in Jewish Law. The reward for sending the dam away is that you receive long life. The story is that Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya was walking one day and saw a man holding a ladder by a tree. His son was on the ladder reaching for a bird’s nest. The father said, “Remember to send the mother bird away” and the Rabbi noted that this child would live a long time since he was obeying two commandments that have the same reward, Sending the mother bird away, and honoring parents both have the reward of long life. The boy sent the mother bird away, and then, tragically, he lost his footing, fell from the tree and died. It is said that this was the cause that caused Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya to become an apostate. G-d had not fulfilled the reward and suddenly the Rabbi could no longer believe in G-d. If G-d could not be relied upon to fulfill the reward, then “There is no Judge and there is no Justice” thus Elisha abandoned his faith. (There is a classic book on this issue, “As a Driven Leaf” by Milton Steinberg. This moment is the center of the book and it deals with the issues of G-d in the world and our experience of G-d. It is one of my favorite books of all time)
The issue has not gone away after all these years. Why bad things happen to good people is one of the realities of our world and it insures that our faith is always subject to question and debate. Can we believe in G-d in spite of the injustice of this world? If not, how is faith possible? If we can, how can we explain the injustice? Abraham’s demand that “The Judge of the world act justly” is a cornerstone of Judaism. Without it all of Jewish Law is impossible. There are many answers that have been come forth over the centuries. If we are to be secure in our faith, we will need to find an answer for ourselves lest we slide into heresy, as did Elisha. The stakes are very high, and we will need to be honest and considered in our answers. I don’t have an answer for you; Judaism demands that you study to find the answer that works best for you.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
4-5768: Mitzvah 73
November 11, 2007

Mitzvah 73 – It is a positive commandment to render judgment about heritages [inheritance of landed property]

Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says, “If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” (Num. 27:8). However, a son has priority over a daughter; and all one’s male descendants have priority over a daughter. A daughter and all her male descendants take priority over the dead man’s father. Included in this commandment is the rule that a firstborn son is to inherit a double share of the legacy. And a husband inherits his wife’s property buy the law of the Sages, taking precedence over all others in her legacy. It applies everywhere and in every time.

The Torah is very clear about the laws of inheritance. Only sons can inherit from their father. Their first responsibility is to their unmarried sisters and they must provide for them until all the daughters are married even if it means the sons must go begging in the street. If there are no sons, then grandsons inherit down the male line. If there are no male descendants, then the legacy passes down to the daughters according to the ruling given to the daughters of Zelofchad in the Book of Numbers. If the daughter has died, it goes down her male descendants. If there are none, than the man’s father is next to inherit. It goes down his male line.
According to the Torah, the legacy is divided into equal parts according to the number of sons (or daughters if there are none) and the firstborn son gets a double portion and the rest get a single portion. Thus if there are three sons, the estate is divided into four equal parts, two going to the firstborn and one each to the other two sons.
Finally, the Sages noted that there is nothing in the Torah about what happens to a wife’s estate when she dies. They ruled that her entire estate is transferred to her husband upon her death. This assumes that she dies before her husband. If he dies first, she keeps her property and collects the 200 zuzim in land that is promised in her ketubah. This legacy is paid even before the sons inherit. It is the first charge against the estate, even before his other creditors.
This is how Jewish law deals with inheritance. There is no probate and the order cannot be changed. Yet we note that Jacob buys the birthright, the double portion from Esau and both Abraham (who gives the double portion to Isaac and not Ishmael) and Jacob (who gives the double portion to Joseph not Reuvan) ignore this law.
Modern Jewish Law avoids this whole arrangement by using the common will that acts as if the person will give his estate away as a gift to whomever he wishes and there is then nothing for anyone to inherit. In general, financial matters such as these follow the rules of the lands in which Jews live unless they have ritual significance. The laws of inheritance do not and that is why, while they remain in effect, they are most often ignored and an estate is divided according to the wishes expressed in the will of the deceased.
I am sure that if you are or were an attorney with a practice in family law, than all of this may be historically interesting. I am not aware that there is anyone today, who follows these laws.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
3-5768: Mitzvah 72
October 22, 2007

Mitzvah 72 – It is a positive commandment to upbraid a sinner
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says, “you shall surely rebuke your fellow.” (Lev. 19:17). He is to inform him that he does himself a wrong by his evil acts; and he is to inform him that he is telling hi this only for his own benefit, to bring him to life in the world-to-come. It is his duty to reprimand him until he listens to him, or until he strikes him and says “I will not listen to you.” There are some early authorities who are lenient about this, holding that it is enough until there is an angry retort [that the other gives us in rejecting our efforts]. But even the first view applies specifically when the person violates a prohibition by Torah law, and when he estimates that it will be effective for the future, that the other person will not do this thing again. Even a person of lower stature is duty-bound to rebuke a person of higher stature. Whoever has it in his power to oppose a sinner in his act and does not do so, fall victim to the guilt of is sin. Now, even though it is a religious duty to rebuke him [a sinner], he should not shame him first. It is a religious requirement to accept rebuke and to bear the chastiser affection. We find in the teachings of the Sages “that even if a person willfully violates a prohibition enacted by the Sages, it is permissible to call him a transgressor. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.

This is a very difficult Mitzvah to perform because it has so many problems that can become attached to it. Let me first deal with the mechanics of the Mitzvah and then try and explain the problems.
This Mitzvah, on the surface is very straightforward. If we find someone whom we see is engaged in a violation of a Torah commandment, we have the obligation (not choice) to rebuke the actions of the person sinning and to try and get that person to do the right thing and not sin. It is so easy to sin and think that everyone is doing the same. When someone rebukes a sinner, that sinner can no longer think that his actions do not really matter. The idea is not to make anyone mad, but to get that person to contemplate his or her actions and to get them to do what is right. Such a person should really thank the one rebuking for saving his portion in the world to come. Additionally, it is possible to do a Mitzvah by mistake, but one must have intention to perform a sin. Rebuking a sinner forces that person to either change his or her ways or to affirm that it is his or her intention to sin, and thus they can no longer plead ignorance or error for their actions.
The first problem we detect with this Mitzvah is the intentions of the one who is doing the Rebuke. The rules of rebuking demand first of all, that the rebuke will have some effect on the Sinner. If the correction will be ignored, reviled or cause anger, than it is better to keep quiet and not rebuke. All the more so if the sinner is known to react violently to rebuke and could injure the one rebuking. Second, the one rebuking should have no vested interest in the sinner either continuing to sin or in changing his ways. If there is a hint of self-interest in the rebuke, someone else should do the rebuking. We don’t build ourselves up by tearing someone else down.
Not every sin is worthy of a rebuke. While we don’t try to rank one Mitzvah as being more important over another, note that the Hafetz Hayyim limits to rebuke to a violation of a Mitzvah from the Torah. Remember there is clear disagreement between Sages as to what some Mitzvot include. One does not rebuke another for following a different authority in Jewish law. So if a person does not hear the Shofar on Rosh Hashana one can “remind” that person that it is a Mitzvah to hear the Shofar. One should not, however, rebuke someone who is listening to the Shofar on Rosh Hashana, because he heard the Shofar in a synagogue where the one rebuking would not pray. Similarly one can rebuke someone who is eating forbidden meat, but not one who is eating food supervised by a Kashrut authority that the one who is rebuking does not accept.
There are authorities today, who feel that the whole rebuking process seems to be a very self-righteous way to act. There are many sinners today and rather than rebuke them, they should be treated as if they are someone who never had the chance to study and practice Jewish law. In other words, they are not sinners, just not fully aware of the complexities of Jewish law. Finally, no matter if one meets all the restrictions above and feels that, in this case, rebuke may help lift a person to live a better life, than rebuke may be given but always beware to give rebuke respectfully, honestly, sincerely and with great kindness. It should be a learning experience for the sinner and not ever be a source of embarrassment or shame. To shame a fellow human being is as close to committing murder as one can get without actually spilling blood. When we rebuke, we must carefully weigh and watch our words.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
2-5768: Mitzvah 71
October 15, 2007

Mitzvah 71 – It is a positive commandment to load with one’s fellow man, to set a burden on a domestic animal or on the person.
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says, “you shall surely help him lift them up.” (Deut. 22:4). If one left him and went his own way without helping him, he disobeyed a positive commandment. However, an elder for whom it is beneath his dignity is free of the duty. If, though, had it been his own he would have unloaded and loaded the burden, he is duty bound likewise with the burden of his fellow man. If he wishes to go beyond the strict letter of the law, he may unload or load it even if it is not in accord with his dignity; and may blessing come upon him.
If a person faced both the religious duty of unloading and the duty of loading, unloading takes priority because of the pain of the living creature. However, if the one needing his burden loaded was a person whom he disliked, and the other was a friend, it is a religious duty to help the disliked person first, so as to discipline his inclination. The disliked person mentioned here means someone whom he saw, when alone, committing a sing, whereupon he warned him but the other did not turn back. It is then a religious duty to hate him. Nevertheless he is to load and unload with him; for the other might delay on account of his items of monetary value and thus come into some danger. And it is proper to save him, since he does not believe I the main principles of our faith.
Loading is to be done specifically if the other pays him a fee for it; but for nothing there is no obligation to do loading. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
This Mitzvah is the flip side of the one from last week. There are two Mitzvot, one to help unload an animal that has fallen under its burden. That burden then needs to be reloaded, either in a different way so the animal can carry it, or onto another animal that may not have as much to carry or on the back of the owner.
Unloading always has priority since it also involves saving an animal from pain and suffering. Loading, however, is more about caring for our fellow human beings. Just like last week, an elder who does not want to sully his dignity does not have to help load the animal of another, but if he is traveling with aides, he can instruct them to help. If he also travels with animals and, from time to time has to reload them, then he must help others in need by the side of the road. If he has not reason to stop and stops anyway, this is acting above the letter of the law and such a man will be praised. People who are stuck on the side of the road are in grave danger of falling prey to robbers and vandals of all kind. To help them get back on their way is, in many cases, participating in saving a life.
There is also a special part of this Mitzvah that involves helping an enemy before a friend. Other sages note that when you stop to help an enemy load his animal, he may think that he has not judged you correctly and it is possible that the two of you may end the hard feelings between you. I have to pause here to comment on the Hafetz Hayim and his definition of an “enemy”. The definition he gives is one who sins in spite of being warned that such an action is prohibited. A person who spitefully sins is not the kind of person someone who loves G-d wants to be near. I am not sure that I would say that such a person should be “hated”. Many Sages insist that those who sin today are not acting out of spite for the law, rather they just don’t know any better. I also assume that this could be the only person the law would allow you to hate. Anger is permitted for a day or two, but we have a big Mitzvah to forgive those who offend us so that we do not hate them for long.
I am not sure what the rule is on being paid. I admit that this seems strange to me. I can only guess that since there were people who were paid to help load an animal that the owner of the load could try and bypass paying such people by doing it himself and when it fall apart anyway, expecting those who he meets on the road to retie the load for free. Thus if he is on the road, he still needs to pay those who help him load up the animal again.