Podcasts about masechet kiddushin

Trying to get into yeshiva or seminary can be very stressful. There are many applicants and only limited spots and, unfortunately, people have to get rejected. One of the ways in which a person can give himself an edge is by working on his bitachon in Hashem. The pasuk tells us, someone who is bote'ach b'Hashem is surrounded by Hashem's kindness. It is an enormous zechut which Hashem rewards in this world as well. A man told me, six years ago his son was applying to yeshiva high school and he sent in an application to four different yeshivot . The father made sure his son reviewed his Gemara over and over so that he would be able to do well when those yeshivot would test him on it. One day, his son's 8 th grade rabbi called him and told him he is not doing enough to get his son into a good yeshiva. He told him various things that other parents were doing, including making connections or being more persistent, to give their children an edge. This man told the rabbi he was doing the normal hishtadlut and he fully believed that Hashem was in charge of which yeshiva his son would get into. He went on to speak very strong words of bitachon . The rebbe heard him and praised him for the great level that he reached. To see the extent of how powerful his words of bitachon were, the next day a principal from another yeshiva called him to tell him that he heard some of the lines of bitachon he told that other rebbe the previous day and he wanted to hear them for himself. His son began the interviews with some of the yeshivot that he applied to, but then he told his father his dream was to go to a certain yeshiva which was considered one of the top yeshivot in all of America. It was known to be extremely difficult to get into. But this father happily encouraged his son to "go for the gold" and so they applied there as well. He told his son, "Hashem is in charge and if this is a good yeshiva for you, He'll help you get into it." A couple of weeks later, his son was going on a Shabbaton and the boys were asked to prepare a devar Torah to say at the meals. The boy was learning Masechet Kiddushin and his father remembered a davar Torah that his friend told him from the Mishnat Kesef when he was 16 years old that connected what he was learning in Masechet Kiddushin to parashat Mishpatim . He told his son the devar Torah and then told him not to take anyone else's place if they wanted to speak. He should only volunteer when no one else wanted to. For the leil Shabbat meal, there were three volunteers. For the Shabbat day meal, another three and for Seudah Shlishit another three. But finally, at the Melave Malka , nobody volunteered so this boy raised his hand and offered to give the devar Torah. Since it was after Shabbat he was able to speak into a microphone. Right before he began speaking, His Rosh Yeshiva who was there received a phone call from the administrators at that top yeshiva asking for information about this boy who applied to their yeshiva. The Rosh Yeshiva told them he was about to give a devar Torah and they asked to listen in, so he put the phone by the boy and they listened to the entire devar Torah. It was extremely impressive and they decided on the spot they wanted this boy in their yeshiva. Baruch Hashem, the boy spent the next four years growing tremendously in that yeshiva. It was perfect for him in every way. The odds of him getting into that yeshiva were very slim, but with Hashem, odds don't matter. They had full bitachon in Hashem and, in that merit, Hashem helped them get in in an amazing way, timing that phone call from the administrators to the exact second this boy was speaking. The best hishtadlut we can make is always improving our bitachon in Hashem.

Today's song is the song of the Behema Daka Teme'Ah, the Small Unkosher Animal , and it sings the Song of Tehilim 125,4: בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹמֶרֶת. הֵיטִיבָה יְיָ לַטּוֹבִים וְלִישָׁרִים בְּלִבּוֹתָם: (תהילים קכה ד) (David Hamelech makes a request) Do good Hashem to good people and to the upright in their hearts. Who is this small unkosher animal? Rav Chaim Kanievsky says it refers to the hyrax and the hare, which are listed in the the unkosher animals in the Torah. Why are they singing this song? He brings down from Bereshit Raba 12,69 on the pasuk where David Hamelech says that God created rocks as a protection for the hyraxes and hares. There's a type of bird from above, like a hawk or a falcon, that wants to come down and prey on them. What protects them? Rock-crevices and cracks, that they run into for protection. Says the Midrash, If this is the case for an unkosher animal, that God created these cracks in the crevices for them to protect themselves, what do you think Hashem created in the merit of Avraham Avinu, as it says the world was created for Abraham Avinu. The midrash says, Abraham , rescrambled means the world was created for us. God made so many good things for the unkosher animals, which symbolize the nations of the world. We see from here that the purpose of the rocks is just for them. So when the hyrax and the hare see that Hashem created these rocks, he's the one that says, "Oh , You created rocks for me? Surely you have to do good for the good people." That is his song. This is truly a fascinating concept! Although this is the song of the hyrax and the hare, the pasuk also talks about how God made mountains for the mountain goats to run on. This is a concept that we see repeatedly. Every animal has its habitat, and every animal has its protection. A Machseh is a shelter. God creates shelters of protection. As we say, Ki Atah Machsi /HashemYou are my refuge. Hashem built places for things to run to. We can say the hole in the wall is for the mouse to run into. For all creatures that are hunted, Hashem created that trap door, that protective haven to run into. And as we say, it's not only the rabbit that's singing the song. When we look into creation, that creature causes us to sing the song. The Chovot Halevavot talks at length about this in Shaar Bechina . We are always supposed to look into creation and learn things from creation. This is a huge lesson of looking at the protective systems . Hashem built in, for all species, ways to be protected, and ways to run away in time of danger. This is similar to a statement of Mishna at the end of Masechet Kiddushin, where one of the Tanaaim says, Did you ever see a lion that had to work? Did you ever see a tiger that had to work? Did you ever see a fox that had to work? The animal kingdoms don't work, and yet Hashem gives them Parnasa. They're all created, He says, to serve Me. Shouldn't I not need to work? But what am I going to do? Adam HaRishon sinned and there was a curse. But barring that curse, whatever Hashem does for the animal world, He will surely do for our world. That's really the Mishna's point here. If that's what He did for the hyrax and the hare, what's He doing for me? We have to look and see, says Hovot Halevavot, that Hashem created for every animal, the proper tools for his parnasa . For example, the anteater has a long sticky tongue that ants get stuck to, and so on. This is the beautiful, eye opening concept of the rocks of refuge for the hare.

The Mishnah in Pirkeh Avot (4:1) famously teaches, איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם – “Who is wise? He who learns from all people.” The Mishnah here defines the term חכם as referring to a person who learns from everyone. In a different context, however, the Rabbis seem to give us a different definition of the word חכם (“wise”). The Gemara, in Masechet Kiddushin (49b), addresses the case of somebody who betroths a woman on the condition that “I am wise” ( על מנת שאני חכם ). How do we know if the kiddushin (betrothal) is valid? How “wise” does this man have to be for the condition to have been fulfilled, such that the woman is now married to him? The Gemara states: כל ששואלים אותו דבר חכמה בכל מקום ואומרה – if he is proficient enough that he can answer Torah questions on any topic. Even if he is not an outstanding scholar, the kiddushin is valid if he is generally knowledgeable about Torah law. How do we reconcile these two sources? How can the Mishnah in Pirkeh Avot define a חכם as somebody who learns from all people, while the Gemara defines it as somebody with broad knowledge and proficiency? We find the answer in the commentary of Rav Ovadia Bartenura to this Mishnah in Pirkeh Avot . He explains the question of איזהו חכם to mean – “Who is the person who deserves praise for his wisdom?” In other words, the Mishnah here is not defining the word חכם . The definition of this term is taught to us by the Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin. Rather, the Mishnah is teaching us what kind of wisdom deserves our admiration and praise – the wisdom of הלומד מכל אדם – of having the humility and openness to learn from the people around us. We are naturally inclined to see other people's faults, but not our own faults. We are naturally inclined to see other people's mistakes, but not our own mistakes. We are naturally inclined to notice what other people don't know, but not what we don't know. We feel uncomfortable admitting that there are things that other people do better than we do, or that other people know more about than we do. So we live in denial. As the prophet Yirmiyahu (9:5) bemoans, שבתך בתוך מרמה – “You reside in the midst of deception.” We live in a state of self-deception, fooling ourselves into thinking that we have it right, and other people have it wrong. This is why the Mishnah teaches that the חכם , the person who deserves praise for his wisdom, is הלומד מכל אדם , the person who can overcome this natural tendency, and be open to learning from all people. If a person is naturally bright, and so he has amassed a lot of knowledge, this isn't necessarily something to be proud of. The most praiseworthy חכם is the one who is not afraid to acknowledge that he has what to learn from the people around him, who is open to learning from other people, rather than always assuming that he knows better. The Hebrew term for a Torah scholar is תלמיד חכם , which literally means “a wise student.” When we refer to Hacham Ovadia Yosef zt”l or Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l as a תלמיד חכם , we are saying that they were students . Yes, they were students, throughout their lives. They reached the towering heights that they reached specifically because they never ceased being students, they never felt that they knew enough, they always strove for more, and they always realized that there was more for them to learn and more room to grow. As we draw closer to the Yom Tov of Shavuot, when we reaffirm our קבלת התורה (acceptance of the Torah), let us remind ourselves what accepting the Torah means. It requires us to have the humility to recognize that we have more to learn, that we are not always correct, that we do not have all the answers, that we do not do everything right, that we have so much more growing to do. It is only if we live with this humility that we will be able to learn and grow so we can achieve to our full potential.

The day of 7 Adar is the day of Moshe Rabbenu's death, and many have the custom to observe a fast on this day. Others have the custom of learning special material in the synagogue on the night of 7 Adar in commemoration of Moshe Rabbenu's passing. In truth, the precise date of Moshe's passing is subject to debate. The Midrashic text Yalkut Shimoni (Yehoshua, chapter 5) cites the view of Rabbi Eliezer who held that Moshe passed away on 7 Shebat, and not 7 Adar. Of course, the accepted view is that he passed away on 7 Adar. However, even within the accepted position we find different views concerning Moshe's death. Rabbi Yehoshua maintained that Moshe died on 7 Adar during an ordinary, twelve-month year, when there was only one Adar. Rabbi Elazar Ha'moda'i, by contrast, claimed that Moshe died during Adar Rishon of a leap year, when there were two months of Adar. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (38a) comments that Moshe died thirty days before Beneh Yisrael began their preparations to cross the Jordan River, which occurred in Nissan. Clearly, then, according to the Gemara, Moshe died either on 7 Adar of a regular year, or on 7 Adar Sheni during a leap year. This debate, of course, will affect the date of the observance of 7 Adar during a leap year. If Moshe died on 7 Adar of an ordinary year, or on 7 Adar Sheni of a leap year, then the observance should be held in Adar Sheni. According to Rabbi Elazar Ha'moda'i, however, Moshe died during Adar Rishon, in which case the observance should be held on 7 Adar Rishon. Practically speaking, those who observe 7 Adar should, in a leap year, observe the occasion twice, both on 7 Adar Rishon and on 7 Adar Sheni, in order to satisfy all views. Regarding the commemoration of a loved one's Yahrtzeit, the Shulhan Aruch rules that if a parent passed away, Heaven forbid, in Adar, then in a leap year the Yahrtzeit is observed during Adar Sheni. If the parent passed away during Adar Rishon in a leap year, then in regular years the Yahrtzeit is observed on that date during the single month of Adar, and in leap years, the Yahrtzeit is observed during Adar Rishon. If the parent passed away during Adar Sheni of a leap year, then the Yahrtzeit is of course observed in a leap year during Adar Sheni. Summary: There are those who observe a fast and conduct a special learning session on 7 Adar, the Yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbenu. In a leap year, these customs should be observed both on 7 Adar Rishon and on 7 Adar Sheni. An ordinary Yahrtzeit for a loved one who passed away during Adar is observed in a leap year in Adar Sheni. Of course, if the loved passed away in a leap year in Adar Rishon or Adar Sheni, then the Yahrtzeit is observed during a leap year in that same month.

The final of the 613 Misvot, as listed by the Sefer Ha'hinuch, is the command to write a Sefer Torah. This Misva is introduced in Parashat Vayelech (Debarim 30:19), where Hashem commands, “Ve'ata Kitbu Lachem Et Ha'shira Ha'zot” (“And now, write for yourselves this song”). The Gemara teaches that it is “praiseworthy” to write a Sefer Torah oneself, if he can, and that one who does is considered as though he stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah. If, however, one is not capable of writing his own Sefer Torah, then he may hire a Sofer (scribe) to write one for him. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah commanded writing for oneself a Sefer Torah for the simple reason that this ensures access to a Sefer Torah from which to study. Since everyone is commanded to write a Sefer Torah, everyone will have a Sefer Torah to learn from, without having to go borrow one, and this will help ensure that a person spends time learning. The more accessible something is, the more likely one is to use it, and so the Torah wanted that we all have access to a Sefer Torah, as this will helps guarantee that we learn Torah. Halacha requires one to write his own Sefer Torah even if he inherited one from his father, and the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this provision serves to ensure a plethora of Sifreh Torah. Not everybody can afford a Sefer Torah, and so the Torah wanted everyone – even those who already have a Sefer Torah – to write one, such that there would be Sifreh Torah available for those who do not have one. Additionally, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, Sifreh Torah gradually wear out, and the ink fades, and so the Torah wanted people to write their own Sifreh Torah, in order for the Torah scrolls to be new and in good condition. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that although the Biblical command refers specifically to the writing of a Sefer Torah, there is certainly value also in having other works of Torah literature written. Even if one received such books from his predecessors, it is a Misva to have more Torah books produced. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that it was customary among righteous people to allocate a room in their home where scribes, whom they hired, would write Torah books. (Of course, the Sefer Ha'hinuch lived before the invention of the printing press, and thus all books had to be handwritten.) In discussing this Misva, the Sefer Ha'hinuch presents a number of Halachot relevant to the way a Sefer Torah should be written. He writes that a space the size of the letter Yod must be left in between each pair of adjacent words, and an empty space the size of a line of text must be left in between the lines. Each line should consist of thirty letters. The allusion given for this practice is the word “Le'mishpehotechem” (“according to your families”) written three times. This word consists of ten letters, and so three times this word teaches us the total of number of letters that should be written on each line of the Sefer Torah. The Rabbis of the Mussar movement taught that this allusion expresses the notion that if a person, his son and grandson all learn Torah, then he is guaranteed that Torah will remain in his family for all time. The Sages inferred this concept from the verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (59:21), “And these words, which I have placed in your mouth, shall not be removed from your mouth, from the mouth of your offspring, or from the mouth of your offspring's offspring…from now and forever” – indicating that once Torah is studied by three generations, it remains in that family for eternity. The three instances of “Le'mishpehotechem” hint to this concept, that after three generations of Torah study, the family is assured of having the Torah remain with it forever. A line in the Sefer Torah should not consist of fewer than thirty letters, as this would resemble an “Iggeret” (formal letter), and the Sefer Torah is to be a book. A line should not consist of more than thirty letters, as it would then be difficult to find the next line, since the beginning and end of the lines would be very far apart. If a word at the end of the line has five letters, but there's room for only three letters, then the extra two letters may be written outside the column. If there is room for only two letters, then those two spaces should be left empty, and the word should be written on the next line. Although two letters may be written outside the column in the case described above, a two-letter word should not be written outside the column. Tradition requires writing certain letters larger or smaller than the rest of the text. Also, certain letters are written with specific numbers of “Tagin” (“crowns”) above the letters. These laws apply only “Le'chatehila” (optimally). If the “Tagin” were not placed correctly, or if the lines were too close or too far from one another, or too lengthy or too short, the Sefer Torah is nevertheless valid, as long as the letters were written properly. This Misva applies in all places and in all time periods. The Sefer Ha'hinuch maintains that this Misva is binding only upon men, because this obligation is linked to the obligation to study Torah – as discussed above – and women are exempt from the Misva of Torah study. One who was able to write a Sefer Torah but failed to do so has neglected this affirmative command. The Sefer Ha'hinuch warns that such a person is deserving of harsh punishment, as fulfilling this Misva is necessary for learning Torah. Conversely, one who fulfills this Misva is rewarded with blessing and will be enriched by the ability to study. Many Rabbis addressed the question of why most people do not write a Sefer Torah, or even hire somebody to write a Sefer Torah for them. If, as we have seen, writing a Sefer Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, then why do otherwise G-d-fearing people not write Torah scrolls for themselves? A famous answer to this question is given by the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327). He notes that whereas in earlier generations, people would use Sifreh Torah as their texts of Torah study, nowadays, we study from other books. Sifreh Torah are used only for the public reading in the synagogue, and we learn from printed Humashim and other Torah texts. Therefore, the Rosh writes, nowadays, we fulfill this Misva by obtaining texts of Torah literature to learn. The Sefer Ha'hinuch, as mentioned earlier, commented that having such books fulfills the spirit of the Misva of writing a Sefer Torah, but according to the Rosh, this is how we fulfill the actual Misva, since these texts are what we use for learning. According to the Rosh, then, we all fulfill this Misva by having works of Torah literature in our homes. We find among later Poskim different opinions as to how to understand the Rosh's position. The Perisha (commentary to the Tur by Rav Yehoshua Falk, Poland, 1555-1614) maintained that according to the Rosh, one who writes a Sefer Torah nowadays, but does not acquire other texts, does not fulfill the Biblical obligation. Since we do not use Sifreh Torah for learning, one cannot satisfy his obligation through the writing of a Sefer Torah, and he must acquire texts from which to study. The Perisha went even further, stating that having only a Sefer Torah is an insult to the Torah. Since we no longer have the tradition of how to interpret the “Tagin” and other features of the Torah text, one who has only a Torah scroll, and no works of Torah literature, is bound to misunderstand the Torah. The Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran Rav Yosef Karo, Spain-Israel, 1488-1575), however, disagreed. In his view, the Rosh concedes that the primary Misva is to write a Sefer Torah, but he also allows fulfilling the Misva by acquiring works of Torah literature. The Sha'agat Aryeh (Rav Aryeh Leib Ginzburg, c. 1695-1785) offers an entirely different reason for why it is not customary for everyone to write a Sefer Torah. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (30) states that some minor elements of the tradition for writing a Sefer Torah have been lost. We cannot definitively ascertain the precise spelling of a small number of words, whether they should be written with or without the letter “Vav.” Therefore, the Sha'agat Aryeh writes, we cannot fulfill the Torah obligation of writing a Sefer Torah, since we lack the knowledge necessary to ensure that the text is written correctly. The Torah reading in the synagogue is not a Biblical obligation, but rather a practice enacted by the prophets, and so we can observe this practice even if the text of the Sefer Torah is not precisely accurate. But writing a Sefer Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, and it thus cannot be fulfilled, due to our lack of knowledge regarding the precise spelling of all the words. For this reason, the Sha'agat Aryeh avers, it is not customary for everyone to write a Sefer Torah. Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Iggerot Moshe, disputes this line of reasoning. A famous Halachic principle establishes that “Safek De'Orayta Le'humra” – when it comes to Torah obligations, we must act stringently in situations of uncertainty. Therefore, Rav Moshe argues, we should be required to write a Sefer Torah despite the uncertainties that we have regarding certain words, because of the possibility that we write them correctly. As long as there is a chance that we can fulfill the Torah obligation by writing a Sefer Torah, we should be required to do so, in accordance with the rule of “Safek De'Orayta Le'humra.” Rav Moshe therefore suggests a different reason for why people do not write a Sefer Torah, explaining that Halacha does not require incurring an exceedingly large expense for the fulfillment of a Misva. Although one must be willing to spend all the money he has if necessary to avoid transgressing a Misvat Lo Ta'aseh (Biblical prohibition), one is not required to spend more than one-fifth of his assets to fulfill a Misvat Aseh (affirmative command). For the vast majority of people, commissioning the writing of a Sefer Torah would require spending more than one-fifth of their assets, and so they are exempt. Rav Moshe then goes even further, showing that in fact one is not required to spend more than one-tenth of his assets for this Misva, as this would undermine his ability to fulfill other Misvot. Indeed, as Rav Moshe notes, the Tur (Rav Yaakob Ben Asher, Spain, 1269-1340) writes that everyone “Asher Yado Maseget” – “who can afford it” – is required to write a Sefer Torah. Now this condition, that one can afford to fulfill the Misva, applies to all affirmative commands, as mentioned. And yet, the Tur mentions this point specifically in the context of the Misva of writing a Sefer Torah. Apparently, the Tur felt that this Misva in particular is contingent upon one's financial abilities, and one should not commission the writing of a Sefer Torah if this would compromise his fiscal ability to fulfill other Misvot. Another explanation is that some views allow fulfilling this Misva jointly with other people. Therefore, by participating in the cost of writing a Sefer Torah (such as by “purchasing” a letter, which is customary in many communities), one satisfies his obligation according to this opinion. If a person does have the privilege of commissioning a Sefer Torah, and he wants to give it to a synagogue, he should lend it, rather than giving it as a gift. Writing a Sefer Torah does not suffice for fulfilling the Misva; he must own the Torah after it is written. Therefore, one should retain ownership over his Sefer Torah, and give it to a synagogue on loan. Indeed, it is customary to write contracts to this effect when a Sefer Torah is donated, stipulating that the Sefer Torah is being lent, and not given, to the synagogue. Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that if one has a respectable place in his home where he can keep a Sefer Torah, he should do so, and he should make a point of reading some of the weekly Torah portion from the scroll each week. This way, he fulfills the Misva according to all opinions, as he writes a Sefer Torah which he occasionally uses for study.

The Torah in Parashat Vayelech (Debarim 31:12) commands that the entire nation – men, women and children – must assemble in Jerusalem for a special ceremony, called “Hakhel” (“assemble”), every seven years. This ceremony, which featured the public reading of certain sections of the Torah by the king, would take place after the conclusion of the Shemita year, on the first day of Hol Ha'moed Sukkot. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (34) comments that as Hakhel constitutes a Misvat Aseh She'ha'zman Gerama – an affirmative command which applies at a particular time – it should, in principle, apply only to men. As a general rule, women are exempt from these kinds of Misvot. However, Hakhel marks an exception to this rule, as the Torah explicitly commands assembling the men, women and children. In explaining the reason behind this Misva, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the entire essence of the Jewish Nation lies in the Torah. It is the Torah that distinguishes us from all other peoples. Other nations perform acts of kindness, and have houses of prayer, but the Torah is unique to Am Yisrael. And, it is the Torah that enables us to earn eternal life and the unprecedented delights of the next world. Therefore, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, it is worthwhile for the nation to come together at certain times in order to reaffirm its identity, to be reminded that the core essence of Am Yisrael is our commitment to the Torah. Once in seven years, a major assembly is held, and everybody will know that this assembly is being held for the purpose of conducting a public Torah reading. This will leave a profound impression on the people, reminding them of the primary importance of Torah in our lives. This awareness will arouse within the people a fierce desire to learn the Torah, and as a result of this desire, they will commit to learn the Torah intensively, thus becoming worthy of Hashem's blessings. The king would read the Torah at Hakhel in the Ezrat Nashim section of the courtyard of the Bet Ha'mikdash. He was permitted to read the Torah while sitting, though he was deemed praiseworthy if he stood for the reading. He would read from the beginning of the Book of Debarim through the first paragraph of Shema, in Parashat Va'et'hanan, and then skip to the second paragraph of Shema, in Parashat Ekeb. He would then read from the section of “Aser Te'aser” in Parashat Re'eh through the end of the sections of the blessings and curses. Trumpets would be sounded throughout the city of Jerusalem announcing the event of Hakhel, and a large wooden stage would be erected in the middle of the Ezrat Nashim. The king would step up onto the stage, where he would be visible to the entire crowd, and everyone would assemble around the stage. The Sefer Torah would be passed around the nation's leaders (from the “Hazan Ha'kenesset,” to the “Rosh Ha'kenesset,” to the deputy Kohen Gadol, and then to the Kohen Gadol), until it was finally handed to the king. This was done as an expression of honor for the king. The king opens the Sefer Torah, recites the Berachot, and reads the aforementioned sections. After the reading, he recites seven additional Berachot. A man or woman who was able to attend Hakhel and failed to do so, or a king who refuses to read the Torah at Hakhel, transgresses this affirmative command. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that those who neglect this Misva are liable to grave punishment, because Hakhel constitutes a “strong pillar” that upholds our religion, and thus failing to fulfill this Misva threatens the perpetuation of our faith. The Misva of Hakhel, as mentioned, is linked to the Misva of Shemita, as it is conducted during Sukkot after the conclusion of the Shemita year. As such, it applies only when the Misva of Shemita applies, meaning, when the majority of the Jewish Nation resides in the Land of Israel. A number of writers raised the question of why the Sages did not enact any commemoration of the Misva of Hakhel. Many other laws that apply during times of the Bet Ha'mikdash are required even nowadays, at least in some form, in commemoration of the Misva that was observed in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash. Hakhel is an exception, as the Sages did not require any form of ceremony for us to conduct to commemorate this Misva. The Aderet (Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, 1845-1905) suggested that the Rabbis instituted commemorations for Misvot that applied during the times of both the first and second Bateh Mikdash. The Misva of Hakhel, however, requires a king, and thus it was not observed in the latter part of the Second Commonwealth, after the Jews lost sovereignty and they did not have a king. Therefore, the Sages did not enact a commemoration of Hakhel. Another explanation is that the custom observed in some communities to remain awake on the last night of Sukkot (Hoshana Rabba) reading the Book of Debarim commemorates Hakhel, the king's reading of Debarim during Sukkot. Yet a third theory is that the custom of “Hatan Torah,” calling a distinguished member of the congregation for the reading of the final section of the Torah on Simhat Torah, commemorates Hakhel. We might add that in a certain sense, the concept of Hakhel is commemorated each and every Shabbat, when Jews congregate in the synagogue and hear the Torah reading and the Rabbi's speech. Like during Hakhel, a large assembly gathers for the purpose of hearing and learning Torah, which reinforces our appreciation of the importance of Torah, and its centrality in our lives. The children see the tumult and excitement, as everyone has come together in the synagogue, and they understand that all this is done for the purpose of learning the Torah. They thus grow up recognizing and appreciating the singular significance of Torah, which is the core essence of Jewish identity.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 10 The week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht. "With hakarat hatov l’Hashem for finishing Masechet Kiddushin and having our first grandchild, Liam Yisrael. Born in these days of much needed tefillot, Liam Yisrael should continue to bring light and have the zechut to be a guardian for Am Yisrael as he continues to grow l'chuppah, l’Torah and l'maasim tovim - as this is the sustenance of our Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael- ad mesh v'esrim shana. May we be zoche to the geula in his days and continue to hear only bsorot tovot." Today's learning is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther and David Yosef ben Esther.  In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for tashlumei nizko." The Gemara derives from the use of the words tashlumei, that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?

Study Guide Bava Kamma 10 The week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht. "With hakarat hatov l’Hashem for finishing Masechet Kiddushin and having our first grandchild, Liam Yisrael. Born in these days of much needed tefillot, Liam Yisrael should continue to bring light and have the zechut to be a guardian for Am Yisrael as he continues to grow l'chuppah, l’Torah and l'maasim tovim - as this is the sustenance of our Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael- ad mesh v'esrim shana. May we be zoche to the geula in his days and continue to hear only bsorot tovot." Today's learning is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther and David Yosef ben Esther.  In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for tashlumei nizko." The Gemara derives from the use of the words tashlumei, that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here. The Siyum is dedicated to the safety of our soldiers, residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, to the safe return of the captives, in memory of those who have fallen, and for a refuah shleima to all those injured. The Siyum is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in loving memory of her grandparents, Yehoshua and Malka Barber "After emerging from the fires of the Holocaust said, “We will never live in galut again!”  They came to Israel through hunger strikes in 1946 and fought to establish the State of Israel. They sent their sons in 1967 to get our holiest site back and in 1973 to preserve our land. May their zechut be our zechut as a nation to defend and return our people to artzeinu. This siyum is also dedicated to Rabbanit Michelle and all of the women of the Hadran community. בזכות נשים צדקניות נגאלו אבותנו.  May the merit of all the נשים צדקניות that have completed Seder Nashim hasten our geula." What professions are ideal? Which ones are frowned upon? Why? If we are successful in our careers, we must understand that our success is dependent on God. Theoretically, we should be able to sustain ourselves easily as even animals can, but our sins caused us to have to work hard at it. Why is it more important to teach your son Torah than to teach him a profession? Torah learning is eternal - it gives us strength in our youth and rejuvenates us when we grow old.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 3 Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in loving memory of her father, David Malik, David ben Aharon Tzvi Hersh v'Shayndel. "It is so fitting that we are also having the Siyum for Masechet Kiddushin & Seder Nashim on this day, because it was in my dad's honor that I made the commitment to participate in this Daf Yomi cycle, while I was saying kaddish for him in 5780/2019-2020. The daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi, which initially overlapped with my aveilut period, continues to keep my father's memory alive. Thank you, Rabbanit Michelle, for your meaningful inspirational presence in my daily life- during times of personal and communal grief." What are the toladot, sub-categories, of each av, main category, of damages? Which one is the one that Rav Papa was referring to when he said that the toladot are not as strict as the avot. In the end, after going through all the possibilities, the conclusion is that he was referring to rocks that a kicked by the animal as he walks that cause damage - in that situation, one pays only half damages. Rav and Shmuel have two basic debates - one regarding an item left in the public domain - under what circumstances is it considered/not considered like a pit (bor)? Another debate is what is meant by mav'e mentioned in the Mishna. 

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here. The Siyum is dedicated to the safety of our soldiers, residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, to the safe return of the captives, in memory of those who have fallen, and for a refuah shleima to all those injured. The Siyum is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in loving memory of her grandparents, Yehoshua and Malka Barber "After emerging from the fires of the Holocaust said, “We will never live in galut again!”  They came to Israel through hunger strikes in 1946 and fought to establish the State of Israel. They sent their sons in 1967 to get our holiest site back and in 1973 to preserve our land. May their zechut be our zechut as a nation to defend and return our people to artzeinu. This siyum is also dedicated to Rabbanit Michelle and all of the women of the Hadran community. בזכות נשים צדקניות נגאלו אבותנו.  May the merit of all the נשים צדקניות that have completed Seder Nashim hasten our geula." What professions are ideal? Which ones are frowned upon? Why? If we are successful in our careers, we must understand that our success is dependent on God. Theoretically, we should be able to sustain ourselves easily as even animals can, but our sins caused us to have to work hard at it. Why is it more important to teach your son Torah than to teach him a profession? Torah learning is eternal - it gives us strength in our youth and rejuvenates us when we grow old.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 3 Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in loving memory of her father, David Malik, David ben Aharon Tzvi Hersh v'Shayndel. "It is so fitting that we are also having the Siyum for Masechet Kiddushin & Seder Nashim on this day, because it was in my dad's honor that I made the commitment to participate in this Daf Yomi cycle, while I was saying kaddish for him in 5780/2019-2020. The daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi, which initially overlapped with my aveilut period, continues to keep my father's memory alive. Thank you, Rabbanit Michelle, for your meaningful inspirational presence in my daily life- during times of personal and communal grief." What are the toladot, sub-categories, of each av, main category, of damages? Which one is the one that Rav Papa was referring to when he said that the toladot are not as strict as the avot. In the end, after going through all the possibilities, the conclusion is that he was referring to rocks that a kicked by the animal as he walks that cause damage - in that situation, one pays only half damages. Rav and Shmuel have two basic debates - one regarding an item left in the public domain - under what circumstances is it considered/not considered like a pit (bor)? Another debate is what is meant by mav'e mentioned in the Mishna. 

In this final lesson, we will continue to discuss who is able to marry a Cohen. We will also learn about the consequences of the child born from a prohibited relationship. We will end this Masechet discussing the prohibition of secluding with someone who is prohibited to you and what are proper and improper trades one should pursue. Mazal tov on finishing Masechet Kiddushin! For more info or to visit the main shiur page please visit ⁠https://webyeshiva.org/course/daf-yomi-one-week-at-a-time-kiddushin/

Introduction to Masechet Kiddushin

Introduction to Masechet Kiddushin

The Shulhan Aruch, in discussing the laws of respecting parents (Yoreh De'a 240:2), mentions that it is forbidden to contradict one's parent's statement in the parent's presence. If one's parent expresses an opinion, it is forbidden to tell the parent that the opinion is wrong. In fact, one may not even support his parent's viewpoint by saying, "I think he's right," because it is disrespectful to indicate that the parent needs the child's backing. Certainly, the child may not explicitly state that he thinks the other view is correct.As for situations where the parent is not present, the Poskim instruct that one may express disagreement, but in an indirect or otherwise respectful manner. One example given is an instance where the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakov Ba'al Ha'turim, 1269-1343) disputes a Halachic ruling of his father, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327). But instead of explicitly stating that he did not accept his father's position, the Tur instead cited the ruling of the Ba'al Ha'terumot (Rav Baruch Ben Yishak of Worms, 1140-1211) – which was the same ruling as the Rosh – and then disputed his ruling. This way, the Tur disputed his father indirectly, rather than explicitly saying that he disagreed with his father's position. Likewise, in any circumstance where one disagrees with his father, he may express his disagreement when his father is not present, as long as he does so with the utmost respect and reverence.The Pit'hei Teshuba, citing the Asmot Yosef (commentary to Masechet Kiddushin by Rabbi Yosef Ibn Ezra, Bulgaria, 1506-1589), notes that this Halacha does not apply to raising questions and posing challenges over the course of study. If a father and son are learning together, it is certainly permissible for the son to question what his father said as normally happens when two study partners learn together. This is part of the normal process of learning, and thus does not constitute an infringement upon the father's honor.Summary: One may not dispute his parent's statement in his presence, and even when his parent is not present, disagreeing with something the parent said is allowed only if it is done respectfully. When a father and son learn together, however, it is permissible for the child to question and challenge what his father says as part of the usual learning process.

Trying to get into yeshiva or seminary can be very stressful. There are many applicants and only limited spots and, unfortunately, people have to get rejected. One of the ways in which a person can give himself an edge is by working on his bitachon in Hashem. The pasuk tells us, someone who is bote'ach b'Hashem is surrounded by Hashem's kindness. It is an enormous zechut which Hashem rewards in this world as well. A man told me, six years ago his son was applying to yeshiva high school and he sent in an application to four different yeshivot . The father made sure his son reviewed his Gemara over and over so that he would be able to do well when those yeshivot would test him on it. One day, his son's 8 th grade rabbi called him and told him he is not doing enough to get his son into a good yeshiva. He told him various things that other parents were doing, including making connections or being more persistent, to give their children an edge. This man told the rabbi he was doing the normal hishtadlut and he fully believed that Hashem was in charge of which yeshiva his son would get into. He went on to speak very strong words of bitachon . The rebbe heard him and praised him for the great level that he reached. To see the extent of how powerful his words of bitachon were, the next day a principal from another yeshiva called him to tell him that he heard some of the lines of bitachon he told that other rebbe the previous day and he wanted to hear them for himself. His son began the interviews with some of the yeshivot that he applied to, but then he told his father his dream was to go to a certain yeshiva which was considered one of the top yeshivot in all of America. It was known to be extremely difficult to get into. But this father happily encouraged his son to “go for the gold” and so they applied there as well. He told his son, “Hashem is in charge and if this is a good yeshiva for you, He'll help you get into it.” A couple of weeks later, his son was going on a Shabbaton and the boys were asked to prepare a devar Torah to say at the meals. The boy was learning Masechet Kiddushin and his father remembered a davar Torah that his friend told him from the Mishnat Kesef when he was 16 years old that connected what he was learning in Masechet Kiddushin to parashat Mishpatim . He told his son the devar Torah and then told him not to take anyone else's place if they wanted to speak. He should only volunteer when no one else wanted to. For the leil Shabbat meal, there were three volunteers. For the Shabbat day meal, another three and for Seudah Shlishit another three. But finally, at the Melave Malka , nobody volunteered so this boy raised his hand and offered to give the devar Torah. Since it was after Shabbat he was able to speak into a microphone. Right before he began speaking, His Rosh Yeshiva who was there received a phone call from the administrators at that top yeshiva asking for information about this boy who applied to their yeshiva. The Rosh Yeshiva told them he was about to give a devar Torah and they asked to listen in, so he put the phone by the boy and they listened to the entire devar Torah. It was extremely impressive and they decided on the spot they wanted this boy in their yeshiva. Baruch Hashem, the boy spent the next four years growing tremendously in that yeshiva. It was perfect for him in every way. The odds of him getting into that yeshiva were very slim, but with Hashem, odds don't matter. They had full bitachon in Hashem and, in that merit, Hashem helped them get in in an amazing way, timing that phone call from the administrators to the exact second this boy was speaking. The best hishtadlut we can make is always improving our bitachon in Hashem.

Dedication opportunities are available for episodes and series at ohr.edu/donate/qa   Questions? Comments? podcasts@ohr.edu   Subscribe to the Rabbi Breitowitz Q&A Podcast at https://plnk.to/rbq&a   Submit questions for the Q&A with Rabbi Breitowitz https://forms.gle/VCZSK3wQJJ4fSd3Q7   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OhrSomayach/videos   00:00 When people put on tefillin incorrectly at Chabad stations, are they yotzei?   04:17 To what extent is the criticism against Peshuto shel Mikra valid? How can we trust haskamos?   13:30 If a kippah is just a minhag, why is it considered so valuable in Masechet Kiddushin?   17:07 Should someone wear a kippah when going to a bar, for example?   19:20 How do we reconcile the simple words with Chazal's interpretation of Esav's kiss? Especially since Esav was so irate before?   24:52 Rachel is criticized on honoring her father when she hid Lavan's idols, but Avraham is lauded when he smashed Terach's idols. What is the difference?   27:23 Where do we draw the line between davening for someone and calling that someone a rasha?   33:54 Do laws relying on the land apply to hydroponics? To seaweed in the ocean?   38:55 Why in Hebrew grammar do numbers switch between feminine and masculine?   39:54 What can we learn from Devorah, the nursemaid of Rivka?   45:20 Should we fear Trump's meeting with Kanye, and should we retract our support?   49:15 How did we get away with Haftarah when we were forbidden to read the Torah?   52:34 What is included under 'wisdom among the gentiles'?   57:36 Why is Moreh Nevuchim not encouraged reading nowadays?   1:05:19 Was the Torah meant to have machlokes?   1:12:28 What do we do with Midrashim?   1:17:04 Are stories in the Torah what really happened, or are they metaphors for deep spiritual truths?   1:20:37 And are these creatures-- the werewolf, the phoenix, etc.-- metaphors or literal? Must they be accepted?   1:22:12 How can one follow the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in an abridged Pesukei dZimrah when one davens nusach Sefard?   1:24:37 What is the difference in kedusha of the Torah and that of Neviim?   1:26:01 Is vinegar good for teeth or not?   1:27:22 How did the three-year cycle work with the parshiyos?   1:30:03 How can one answer someone who wants to go to a club or a bar, when they won't accept that it's not how a ben Torah behaves?   1:31:49 How could Og have survived everything despite being such a rasha?   1:34:08 Who split up Tehillim into the 30-day cycle?   1:36:49 If time is infinite, how can Hashem be outside it?   You can listen to this and many other Ohr Somayach programs by downloading our app, on Apple and Google Play, ohr.edu and all major podcast platforms. Visit us @ ohr.edu  PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS

In the context of the Torah's discussion of laws relevant to the Kohen Gadol in Parashat Emor, it commands, “Ve'lo Yehalel Zar'o Be'amav” – literally, “He may not defile his offspring among his nation” (Vayikra 21:15). The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin explains that this verse refers to a Kohen Gadol who has a relationship with a widow outside the framework of marriage. The previous verse (21:14) forbids a Kohen Gadol from marrying several kinds of women, including a widow. Now the Torah adds a separate prohibition, which forbids a Kohen Gadol from having a relationship that disqualifies a woman or her offspring from marrying a Kohen. The Sages understood that this refers to cohabiting with a widow out of wedlock, a relationship which is not included in the previous verse, as the previous commands, “Lo Yikah” – that a Kohen Gadol may not marry a widow. This second verse thus adds that a Kohen Gadol may not have a relationship with a widow even out of wedlock. It emerges, then, that if a Kohen Gadol marries a widow and then has relations with her, he is guilty of two transgressions, and thus liable to two sets of Malkut, whereas if he has a relationship with a widow without marrying her, he is guilty only of violating “Ve'lo Yehalel.” (The Gemara notes that if a Kohen Gadol merely betroths a widow, without completing the marriage process, he does not violate the prohibition of “Lo Yikah.”) The Sages inferred that this prohibition applies to other Kohanim, as well, forbidding them from cohabiting with women whom they are forbidden from marrying (a divorcee, a “Halala,” and a “Zona”). If a regular Kohen has a relationship with one of these women out of wedlock, he is in violation of this command. However, he is not liable to Malkut, because Malkut are administered only for violating prohibitions mentioned explicitly by the Torah. This command is introduced specifically in reference to a Kohen Gadol, and the Sages inferred its extension to ordinary Kohanim; since this extension is not explicit, an ordinary Kohen is not liable to Malkut for violating this prohibition. In one sense, this prohibition applies specifically to a Kohen Gadol's relationship with a widow, and not to relationships with the other types of women whom a Kohen Gadol may not marry (divorcee, “Zona,” and “Halala”). Those women are already disqualified from marrying Kohanim, and thus a Kohen Gadol's relationship with such a woman does not have the effect of “Hilul” – disqualifying her. This command is relevant only to a Kohen Gadol's relationship with a widow, whom ordinary Kohanim are permitted to marry, but who becomes disqualified for Kohanim through cohabitation with a Kohen Gadol. However, as the Sefer Ha'hinuch discusses, this limitation applies only in the rare case of “He'ara” – if only the beginning of intercourse occurred, but not full intercourse that could produce a child. If complete intercourse occurred, then even in a case of a divorcee, a “Halala” or a “Zona,” the Kohen Gadol had committed an act which disqualifies the offspring from marrying Kohanim, and this act would thus be included under the prohibition of “Ve'lo Yehalel.” It is only regarding “He'ara” that this prohibition is limited to a Kohen Gadol's relationship with a widow, because the other forbidden women are already disqualified from marrying Kohanim. But if complete intercourse occurred, then a Kohen Gadol violates this prohibition even if the woman belonged to one of the other categories of forbidden women. The reason for this prohibition, as the Sefer Ha'hinuch explained in reference to earlier commands, is that a Kohen Gadol is to maintain especially strict levels of purity and sanctity. To that end, the Torah forbade him from having a relationship with a widow, whose mind might be on her first husband, thus compromising the sanctity of her union with the Kohen Gadol.

Parashat Ekeb begins by telling of the great rewards which G-d promises to give us if we faithfully observe the Misvot. This includes the blessings of children, material prosperity, and victory over our hostile enemies. These verses become difficult to understand in light of the verse that immediately precedes this section – the final verse of the previous Parasha, Parashat Vaet'hanan. There Moshe exhorts us to fulfill all the laws "that I am commanding you today to perform." Rashi, based on the Gemara, explains the phrase "Hayom La'sotam" ("today to perform") as indicating that we perform them "today," in this world, but the reward will be received only in the future, in the world to come. This final verse of Parashat Vaet'hanan, then, establishes that the reward for Misva observance is paid not here in our world, but rather in the next world. How, then, can the Torah immediately then tell us of the rewards of children, prosperity and military victory? How are we promised these rewards for Torah observance, if Torah observance is rewarded only in the next world? One answer that has been given lies in a distinction between the two basic categories of Misvot – our obligations to G-d ("Ben Adam La'Makom"), and our interpersonal obligations ("Ben Adam La'habero"). The verse in Yeshayahu (3:10) speaks of a "Sadik Ki Tob" – "righteous person who is good," and says that such people will "consume the fruit of their deeds." The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (40a) explains that this refers to those Sadikim who are "Tob La'Shamayim Ve'la'beriyot" – "good to G-d and to people," meaning, who fulfill both their obligations to the Almighty, and their obligations to other people. Such a person "consumes the fruit of his deeds" – meaning, he enjoys the "fruit" of his Misvot already in this world. The reward for the Misvot "Ben Adam La'Makom" that we fulfill are given only in the next world, but the rewards for our interpersonal Misvot are paid already in this world. Indeed, the opening Mishna of Masechet Pe'a, which we recite after the Beracha over Torah learning each morning, lists certain Misvot "whose fruits a person eats in this word, while the principal remains intact for the next world." The vast majority of these Misvot are interpersonal Misvot. We consume the "fruits" of these Misvot already here in this world, without diminishing from the "principal," which will be given to us in full in the next world. This resolves the seeming contradiction between the end of Parashat Va'et'hanan and the beginning of Parashat Ekeb. When it comes to our Misvot "Ben Adam La'Makom," the reward is given only in the next world. But the opening verses of Parashat Ekeb speak of the fulfillment of even the Misvot "Ben Adam La'habero," for which we are rewarded already here in this world. We might add that, as already noted by the Ba'al Ha'turim (Rav Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343), the word "Ekeb" in Gematria equals 172 – the same number of words as there are in the first version of the Ten Commandments (in Shemot, chapter 20). Perhaps, the word "Ekeb" in this verse alludes to the 172nd word in the Ten Commandments – meaning, the final word, which is "Le're'acha" – "to your fellow." The Torah here is indicating to us that if we ensure to fulfill not only our obligations to G-d, but also our obligations "Le're'acha," to our fellowman, then we will be worthy of all the great rewards described in this Parasha – because when it comes to interpersonal Misvot, we receive the "fruits" already in this world, and not only in the next world.

The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (33) tells that Rabbi Ilai and Rabbi Yaakob Bar Zabda were once learning together when Rabbi Shimon Bar Abba walked by, and they stood in his honor. Rabbi Shimon then told them that they acted improperly by standing for him. For one thing, he noted, they themselves were scholars of greater stature, and therefore should not have stood to give him honor. But additionally, he claimed, one should not interrupt Torah learning to give honor to a Torah scholar. A person studying Torah has the status of a Torah scroll, and a Torah scroll certainly does not need to show honor to a scholar of Torah.The Gemara notes that Rabbi Shimon here expresses the view taken by Rabbi Elazar, who stated, "A Torah scholar is not allowed to stand in his Rabbi's presence as he [the student] involves himself in Torah."However, as the Gemara proceeds to mention, this is not the accepted position. The Gemara reports that Abayeh would sharply condemn anyone who followed this ruling and did not interrupt his learning to stand for a Torah scholar. The purpose of learning is to teach a person how to properly conduct himself, and therefore failing to observe the Misva of honoring one's Rabbi because he studies Torah undermines the validity of his learning. Thus, one is required to stand in the presence of his Rabbi even if this entails disrupting his Torah learning. This Halacha is codified in the Yore De'a section of the Shulhan Aruch (242:11), as well as in the Birkeh Yosef (244) and Ben Ish Hai (Parashat Ki Teseh).The Ben Ish Hai adds that this Halacha applies even while one prays Pesukeh De'zimra or Shema; if his Rabbi or parent walks in at that point, he must stand, even though he is in the middle of praying. Likewise, the Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) rules that one must stand for his Rabbi or parent while reciting a Beracha Aharona after eating or drinking. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Halichot Olam, extends this ruling to Birkat Ha'mazon: one whose Rabbi, father or mother enters the room as he recites Birkat Ha'mazon must stand to give honor to the Rabbi or parent.Summary: A person must stand when his Rabbi or parent enters the room, even if he is in the middle of studying Torah or reciting Pesukeh De'zimra, Shema, Birkat Ha'mazon or a Beracha Aharona.

Does the Torah obligation to stand in the presence of one's parent apply if the parent is the child's student? Since students bear an obligation to respect their Rabbi, perhaps a Rabbi is not required to stand in the presence of his parent who is his student, and perhaps it would even constitute an infringement upon the Rabbi's honor if he stands for his parents.The Gemara raises this question in Masechet Kiddushin, and attempts to draw proof from an incident where the Sage Shemuel instructed Rav Yehuda to stand in his father's presence, despite the fact that Rav Yehuda was his father's Rabbi. This would appear to indicate that one must stand up for his father even though the father is his student. The Gemara, however, dismisses this proof, claiming that Rav Yehuda's situation may have been unique and thus does not establish a general Halachic precedent. The Gemara's discussion of this issue ends at this point, and the Rishonim note that this issue is left unresolved.Accordingly, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) rules that one must be stringent and stand for his father in such a case, in light of the fundamental rule of "Safek De'orayta Le'humra" – one must act stringently in cases of uncertainty involving a Torah obligation. Since standing in the presence of one's parent constitutes a Torah obligation, one must stand in situations of Halachic uncertainty as to whether this requirement applies.The Shulhan Aruch (Yore De'a 240) codifies the Rosh's ruling, and adds that the father must likewise stand in the presence of his son, since one is required to stand in the presence of his Rabbi. In such a case, then, they must both stand in each other's presence. The Shulhan Aruch also writes that if the son, the Rabbi, wishes to forego on his honor and allow the father not to stand for him, he may, but only in private contexts, or in places where people recognize his father. When the two are in a public place where people do not know his father, the Rabbi may not excuse his father from standing for him, since people will not realize that that this man is his father. It would thus infringe upon the honor of the Torah when the scholar rises for his father.In fact, it is recorded that the Maharam of Rothenberg (Germany, 1215-1293) stayed away from his father once he became a Rabbi, in order not to compromise his or his father's honor. He did not want his father to show him respect, but he knew that if others would see his father not showing him respect, they would not realize that this was his father, thus causing a disgrace to the Torah. He therefore felt it was preferable to him not to see his father at all, so that neither would have to compromise his honor for the sake of the other's honor.This demonstrates how seriously the great Rabbis approached this obligation to stand in the presence of parents and Rabbis.It should be noted that this obligation to stand for a parent applies to both sons and daughters, and requires standing fully upright, and not merely rising slightly from one's chair.Summary: If a person is his parent's Rabbi, he and his parent must stand for each other: he must stand out of respect for the parent, and the parent must stand out of respect for the child, as he is the Rabbi.

The Shulhan Aruch, in the Yore De'a section (240:7), codifies the Torah obligation to stand in the presence of one's father or mother. The source for this Halacha is a passage in Masechet Kiddushin (31b), where we read that Rav Yosef would say upon hearing his mother's footsteps, "I shall rise for the Shechina [Divine Presence] which is now coming!"The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204), in codifying this Halacha (Hilchot Mamrim 6:3; listen to audio recording for precise citation), writes that one must stand in the presence of one's parent "as he stands in the presence of his Rabbi." The later scholars interpret the Rambam's comment to mean that this obligation is akin to the obligation to rise before one's "Rab Mubhak" – his primary Torah mentor. Halacha requires standing in the presence of one's "Rab Mubhak" so long as he can be seen; even if the Rabbi is not situated near the student, the student must rise if the Rabbi is within visible distance. Accordingly, in the presence of a parent, too, one must stand even if the parent is at a distance. So long as the child can see his father or mother, he must stand as an expression of honor.This obligation applies regardless of the parent's age, and regardless of the parent's level of Torah knowledge and piety.Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in one of his responsa, bemoans the fact that so many people neglect this Torah obligation. Some suggested that nowadays it can be assumed that parents forego on this expression of honor, and do not demand that their children stand in their presence. Since a child is not required to stand if the parents waived this obligation, nowadays people need not stand, as they can assume that their parents forego on this requirement. However, children who wish to rely on this leniency should receive explicit, verbal consent from their parents not to stand in their presence, so that it is clear that they forego on this display of respect which is due to them.Summary: There is a Torah obligation to stand in the presence of one's father or mother, so long as the parent is within visible distance. Some authorities maintain that nowadays it can be assumed that parents waive this privilege; however, it is proper for one to receive their parents' explicit, verbal consent if he wishes to rely on this leniency.

The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin teaches us, שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא – the reward for observing mitzvot comes not in this world, but rather in the next world. Commentators raised the question of how Hashem can delay our reward to the next world. After all, there is a command in the Torah forbidding an employer from delaying payment to his worker. If somebody was hired to work for a day, the employer is required by the Torah to pay the worker right away, at the end of the day (unless the worker agrees to a different arrangement). How, then, can Hashem delay our “payment” for our mitzvot until after we depart from this world? Why doesn't He repay us for our “work” immediately? Some commentators answer this question based on the distinction drawn in halachah between workers hired directly by the employer, and workers hired by the employer's agent. An employer is required to pay workers immediately only if he hired them directly. But if he appointed someone – like a manager – to hire the workers on his behalf, then he is not required to pay them right away at the end of the day. We were “hired” to perform the mitzvot by Hashem's agent – Moshe Rabbenu. He is the one who taught us the mitzvot . Therefore, Hashem does not pay us right away for the mitzvot we perform. We receive our “wages” only in the next world. However, there are two commands which we heard directly from Hashem at Mount Sinai – the first two of the Ten Commandments. These are the command of אנוכי ה' אלוקיך – believing in Hashem – and the prohibition of לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים – not to worship other gods. These mitzvot were heard from Hashem directly when He revealed Himself at Mount Sinai. Therefore, Hashem rewards us for obeying these commands – for having faith in Him – immediately, in this world. We will not have to wait to be rewarded for our emunah (faith). However, we must remember what emunah means – that we place our faith only in Hashem, and not in any other “gods.” It means that we place our faith only in Him, and not in our boss, our business, a client, a product, an investment, our intelligence, our talents, our skills, a political figure, or anything or anyone else. It means relying solely and exclusively on Hashem. If we do this, then we are rewarded immediately, right away. This explains the promise made by Hashem in Parashat Behar of the reward for observing the mitzvah of shemittah . Every seven years, farmers are to refrain from working the land, and leave all the produce for anyone who wants it. Observing this mitzvah requires a great deal of emunah – trusting that Hashem will take care of them even though they will “close the shop” for an entire year, and let anyone who wants come and take the “merchandise” for free. Hashem promises that if Beneh Yisrael observe this mitzvah , then He will reward them with great prosperity, and the land will produce extra food. In reward for our emunah , we are rewarded right away. Although we do not observe the mitzvah of shemittah here in the United States, its message is no less relevant to us than it is to farmers in Israel. Even though we can and should work hard to earn a living, we need to always remember that Hashem alone gives us everything we have, and we should be relying on Him, and only Him, at all times. We need to place our trust in Him, and not in any other “gods,” and rely on His promise of reward even in this world for our emunah .

One of the many Misvot presented in Parashat Kedoshim is "Ish Imo Ve'abiv Tira'u" – to show reverence to one's parents (19:3), a Misva associated with the fifth of the Aseret Ha'dibrot – "Kabed Et Abicha Ve'et Imecha," to honor one's parents (Shemot 20:12). The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31b) tells of the exceptional manner in which Abimi showed respect and reverence to his father, Rabbi Abahu. On one occasion, Rabbi Abahu asked Abimi to bring him water to drink. By the time Abimi returned with the water, Rabbi Abahu fell asleep. Abimi remained there with the cup of water until he woke up. During the time he waited, he arrived at a new insight into a certain verse in the Book of Tehillim. Why is it significant that Abimi gained a new Torah insight as reward for his outstanding devotion to his father? In the Aseret Ha'dibrot, the Torah writes that the reward for honoring parents is long life: "Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be prolonged…" The explanation might be that G-d is assuring us that we will be fully compensated for the time taken to respect our parents. This Misva, particularly when a parent is aged, can be exceedingly time consuming, as the child needs to visit the parent, care for the parent's various needs, take the parent to his or her doctor appointments, bring the parent shopping, and so on. One might feel that all this time taken to respect his parents is undermining his ability to achieve and accomplish. His efforts on his parent's behalf, he thinks, is limiting him. G-d therefore assures us that nothing will be lost as a result of the time taken to respect our parents. We will have years added onto our lives so we can accomplish all that we seek to accomplish and are capable of accomplishing, despite allocating considerable amounts of time and effort to care for our parents as the Torah requires. This easily explains why Abimi was rewarded by arriving at a new Torah insight. He sacrificed valuable time which he would have otherwise spent learning Torah for the sake of honoring his father, waiting at his father's side until he woke up so he could give him his water. He therefore received special divine assistance in his understanding of Torah, such that his scholarship did not suffer at all on account of his devotion to his father. This episode brings to mind the Gemara's famous comment in Masechet Berachot (32b) regarding the "Hasidim Ha'rishonim" – the "pious ones" of the earlier generations. These righteous men would spend a full hour preparing for each of the three daily prayers, and then another hour in contemplation after each prayer. The Gemara raises the question of how they were able to succeed as Torah scholars, and earn a livelihood, if they sacrificed so much time each day before and after each prayer. The answer, the Gemara explains, is that they received Hashem's special assistance in the merit of their special piety, such that they managed to master Torah and earn a living despite the time spent before and after praying. When we take out time for important Misvot such as learning and honoring parents, Hashem will ensure that nothing will be lost, that we will be no less accomplished, that the time will be returned to us. We never lose as a result of devoting time to Misvot – we only gain.

Welcome to Embrace Shabbat. In his sefer Ohr LeZion (page רלד ), Chacham Ben Zion quotes a passuk in Shemot (16:29): רְא֗וּ כִּֽי־ה' נָתַ֣ן לָכֶ֣ם הַשַּׁבָּת֒ עַל־כֵּ֠ן ה֣וּא נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶ֛ם בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁ֖י לֶ֣חֶם יוֹמָ֑יִם See, that it is Hashem Who, having given your Shabbat, therefore gives you a double portion on the sixth day. He explains that a person shouldn't worry about how they will be able to keep Shabbat or have enough food for the day. Hashem has commanded a person to keep Shabbat, and He therefore provides the parnassah that a person needs to follow its laws. Chacham Ben Zion continues that this principle does not only apply to the mitzvah of Shabbat. Rather Shabbat serves as an exemplar for all mitzvot : Hashem satisfies all of our needs so that we are able to carry out His mitzvot. As the Gemara teaches, מאן דיהיב חיי יהיב מזוני , the One that gives life, gives sustenance. When G-d grant's a person life, He provides all of the necessary sustenance that comes along with it; when He gives a person a challenge, He also supplies everything that a person needs to deal with it. A story is told of a certain person that struggled mightily with parnassah. He had a few children and told his Rabbi that he and his wife could not afford to have any more children, as they would not be able to adequately provide for their child's needs. The Rabbi replied that every child comes with his own pipeline of parnassah, and perhaps this child's pipeline would give the family all of the parnassah that they needed. The couple listened to the Rabbi and had another child, who ended up becoming a multimillionaire and taking care of the whole family. This principle can be applied to all of the problems that a person grapples with. For example, when a person begins learning in Kollel, they sometimes worry how they will be able to support their family. Such a person should recognize that Hashem commanded a person to learn and have children, and therefore He will provide- just rely on Him! (Of course, not everyone is on the level to commit themselves to learning in Kollel, but this is just an example to highlight the point.) The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin quotes Rav Shimon Ben Elazar who said: in all my days, I have not seen an animal with a trade. I have not seen a deer that is a leather worker or a cat that is a baker! And yet, all of their needs are taken care of. If this can be seen with animals, which were created to serve human beings, surely the same applies to people, who can be confident that they are able to earn a parnassah without any pain. Furthermore, for those who have higher levels of bitachon , their work will be blessed and they will not need to work as tirelessly as others. Hashem gives us the ability to fulfill His mitzvot. The same is true when it comes to tzedakah. When Hashem commands us to give tzedakah, He gives us the ability to do so, as well. The Pele Yoetz provides a visual to this commandment: imagine that someone slipped $1000 under their neighbor's door and asked, “Please give me back $100.” Of course the person would return the $100! Similarly, a person only has to give maaser , but the large majority of their money is provided for free from Hashem. I am involved in an organization named Lev Chana which gives cards to needy families that they can redeem in certain clothing stores. The cards are redeemable only in those stores, and only until the middle of Pesach, thus ensuring that all the money is spent on clothing for the Yom Tov. This is a beautiful way to bring joy to needy families before Yom Tov, whereby we earn Hashem's blessings of peace and joy in our own families. Anyone who wishes to participate in this special mitzvah can write a check made out to Lev Chana and mail it to Lev Chana c/o Rabbi David Sutton, 1059 E. 10th St., Brooklyn, NY, 11230. One can also reply to this email, or email me directly at rabbisutton@gmail.com, and a bill will be sent. You can quickpay to the email address above as well. We have been giving this class every week for the past year for no charge. Now is the time that I ask for a little hakarat haTov to help me out on this mission. Thank you very much. Tizku l'mitzvot and have a Shabbat Shalom.

The day of 7 Adar is the day of Moshe Rabbenu's death, and many have the custom to observe a fast on this day. Others have the custom of learning special material in the synagogue on the night of 7 Adar in commemoration of Moshe Rabbenu's passing.In truth, the precise date of Moshe's passing is subject to debate. The Midrashic text Yalkut Shimoni (Yehoshua, chapter 5) cites the view of Rabbi Eliezer who held that Moshe passed away on 7 Shebat, and not 7 Adar. Of course, the accepted view is that he passed away on 7 Adar. However, even within the accepted position we find different views concerning Moshe's death. Rabbi Yehoshua maintained that Moshe died on 7 Adar during an ordinary, twelve-month year, when there was only one Adar. Rabbi Elazar Ha'moda'i, by contrast, claimed that Moshe died during Adar Rishon of a leap year, when there were two months of Adar. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (38a) comments that Moshe died thirty days before Beneh Yisrael began their preparations to cross the Jordan River, which occurred in Nissan. Clearly, then, according to the Gemara, Moshe died either on 7 Adar of a regular year, or on 7 Adar Sheni during a leap year.This debate, of course, will affect the date of the observance of 7 Adar during a leap year. If Moshe died on 7 Adar of an ordinary year, or on 7 Adar Sheni of a leap year, then the observance should be held in Adar Sheni. According to Rabbi Elazar Ha'moda'i, however, Moshe died during Adar Rishon, in which case the observance should be held on 7 Adar Rishon.Practically speaking, those who observe 7 Adar should, in a leap year, observe the occasion twice, both on 7 Adar Rishon and on 7 Adar Sheni, in order to satisfy all views.Regarding the commemoration of a loved one's Yahrtzeit, the Shulhan Aruch rules that if a parent passed away, Heaven forbid, in Adar, then in a leap year the Yahrtzeit is observed during Adar Sheni. If the parent passed away during Adar Rishon in a leap year, then in regular years the Yahrtzeit is observed on that date during the single month of Adar, and in leap years, the Yahrtzeit is observed during Adar Rishon. If the parent passed away during Adar Sheni of a leap year, then the Yahrtzeit is of course observed in a leap year during Adar Sheni.Summary: There are those who observe a fast and conduct a special learning session on 7 Adar, the Yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbenu. In a leap year, these customs should be observed both on 7 Adar Rishon and on 7 Adar Sheni. An ordinary Yahrtzeit for a loved one who passed away during Adar is observed in a leap year in Adar Sheni. Of course, if the loved passed away in a leap year in Adar Rishon or Adar Sheni, then the Yahrtzeit is observed during a leap year in that same month.

Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

When a person is presented with a chesed opportunity that will require him to give up a lot of time, an initial thought he might have is, if I spend all my time on this chesed, I won't have enough time for myself. The Mesilat Yesharim in perek 19 tells us not to have that fear, because העושה חסד יקבל חסד – one who does chesed will receive extra chesed from Hashem, and who knows, it may very well be that the chesed opportunity the person is being presented with is Hashem's way of enabling that person to receive berachot that would otherwise have not been available to him. I read a story in the Machon Shaar HaBitachon about a man named Yitzchak who was praying every day from the bottom of his heart to get remarried. He was raising two sons by himself, and it was becoming overwhelming. Three years ago, in Kislev, he approached a shadchan asking to be set up and the shadchan told him to first get a beracha from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita . Yitzchak replied, the wait to get in was hours, and he didn't have that kind of time to spare. The shadchan told him he could send in a fax with his request instead of waiting in line. Yitzchak listened and sent a request and a week later he received a reply. The Rav said he should learn Masechet Kiddushin with a study partner and everything will be fine. For the first time in six years, Yitzchak felt a renewed sense of hope. He went to the kollel closest to his home and asked the first avrech he saw there if he would kindly learn Masechet Kiddushin with him. The avrech replied he had a full schedule in the kollel , including night seder and couldn't possibly find the time to add another chavruta . Yitzchak went from person to person there with the same request and received basically the same response from each of them. Now Yitzchak felt his world falling apart again. He was so close to the yeshua , but without a study partner, it was not going to happen. He sat down in the bet midrash and began praying to Hashem in his own words. While he was praying, an avrech nearby heard him and felt so bad for him. He approached him and he offered to learn with him. The name of this avrech is Rav Yisrael Chaim, he had just finished learning a gemara in Masechet Shabbat which says that we are supposed to try our hardest to emulate the ways of Hashem. Just like Hashem is merciful, we are supposed to be merciful. Rav Yisrael Chaim saw this as an opportunity sent to him directly from Shamayim to see if he was going to follow the words of the gemara that he just read. And he did. Rav Yisrael carved out a window of time in his extremely busy schedule to learn with Yitzchak every single day. Their first meeting took place on the second day of Chanukah, the 26 th of Kislev, 2018. They learned every day and before they even reached half of the Masechet , Yitzchak got engaged and shortly thereafter got married. On the night of his wedding, Yitzchak was overflowing with gratitude to Rav Yisrael Chaim for making the time to learn with him. Rav Yisrael Chaim had one child, a ten-year-old boy, and was told by the doctors he would never have another child. Yitzchak gave Rav Yisrael a heartfelt beracha at his wedding that he should be zoche to have more children. They continued learning afterward with the goal of finishing the entire masechet . When Chanukah came around again in 2019, they were up to daf 80, just two pages short of completing the masechet . It was the 26 th of Kislev, exactly one year since they began. Surprisingly, Rav Yisrael did not show up that day, he never missed kollel. Where could he be, thought Yitzchak. And then Yitzchak's phone rang. It was Rav Yisrael Chaim. He said, “I want you to be the first to know the good news because it came about through your beracha . Baruch Hashem, we just had a baby boy, eleven years after the doctors had declared it impossible for us to ever have children again.” Yitzchak hung up the phone, crying tears of joy and he made an announcement in the kollel about the yeshua that Rav Yisrael just had. He then said, “It was difficult for him to make time for me, but in the zechut of our learning, I got married and he had a baby.” העושה חסד יקבל חסד.

We continue with the theme that VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha/ Love your friend like you love yourself also applies to one's spouse- and not only does it apply, but rather, it's one of the primary focuses of VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha. We see this from a Gemarah in Masechet Kiddushin (41a): In the days of old, it was common for a person to send a messenger to find a wife, as we see with Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who was sent as a messenger to get Rivka Imenu for Yitzhak Avinu. The messenger brings back the wife, but does the he actually make the kiddushin ? Does the messenger actually make the marriage? The Gemarah says, “It is forbidden for a man to marry a woman before seeing her .” You can't trust the messenger. You have to see her for yourself, because it's possible that when you see her, you might see something that disgusts you, and then she will be disgusting in your eyes. And the Torah says, VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha. If you're going to be married, but you aren't going to love your wife because she is not attractive to you (because you did not see her before you got married), you will end up living a life in sin - the sin of disliking your wife. So VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha is specific to one's wife. Furthermore, the Rambam, in the laws of Ishut ( chapter 15, halacha 19) says, “ Our rabbis commanded us that a man must respect his wife more than his own body and love her like his own body.” Again, we see that there is a special command of VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha when it comes to a spouse. The Sefer HaBrit, in his Ma'Amar on Ahavat Re'im /Beloved Friends ( chapter 15) says that people make a mistake, because of the principle that the Rambam says, to love her like you love your body, and because of the rule of Ishto K'Gufo/ that a person's wife is like himself (they are one unit) . A person has to be especially careful with Ve'Ahavta LeRe'echa Kamocha with his spouse. There are people who are careful to keep this Mitzvah with everybody. They love every body, except their wives, who are the exception. They disgrace their wives and reason that it's okay because if they have a right to embarrass themselves, then they can embarrass their wives. It's not someone other than themselves. They don't realize that, in his words, “ The sin is too great to bear . Treating your wife improperly is worse than mistreating anybody else.” We are stressing this point so that people should not make the mistake of thinking it's only their wife, so they can lash out at her, and it's their right. That's a mistake. VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha applies to a spouse more than anyone else. Have a wonderful day.

In the beginning of Parashat Mishpatim (starting from Shemot 21:2), the Torah introduces the law of the Ebed Ibri – the indentured Jewish servant. The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists this law as the 42nd Biblical command, explaining that it incorporates several different provisions. First, it mandates releasing the servant after six years of service, or with the onset of the Yobel (jubilee), even if the Yobel occurs before the end of the six-year term. This law also includes the servant's ability to buy his freedom if he comes up with the money to pay the value of the service that he still owes the master. Additionally, if the master dies without any sons, the servant goes free, and is not inherited by the deceased's inheritors. Finally, if the servant wishes to remain after working for six years, the master pierces his ear, and the servant then remains with him until the Yobel. In explaining the underlying basis of this law, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the most valuable of all character traits is kindness and compassion. We, the Jewish Nation, are expected to conduct ourselves according to the highest standards of character, and so the Torah demands that we treat those who are subordinate to us with kindness and compassion. It is by engendering these qualities, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, that we become worthy of blessing. For this reason, the Torah commanded that a master who purchases a servant must treat him with mercy and kindness, releasing him from service on the occasions mentioned above. Moreover, the Gemara teaches in Masechet Kiddushin, “One who purchases an Ebed Ibri is like he purchased a master for himself.” The Torah requires the master to care for all the servant's needs and treat him like a full-fledged member of the household, to the extent that the master is, in a sense, actually the servant. In fact, the Gemara states that if there is only one food product available, the master must give that product to his servant, rather than keep it for himself. Whereas in other societies slaves were abused and subjected to cruel treatment, the Torah demands treating one's servant with sensitivity and kindness, like the other members of the household. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that this law applies only to males, as women cannot purchase an Ebed Ibri. It applies only in periods when the laws of Yobel apply, and thus one cannot purchase an Ebed Ibri nowadays. The Sefer Ha'hinuch proceeds to make a remarkable statement about one who violates these laws, and refuses to release his Ebed Ibri when required by the Torah. Such a person, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, not only violates this command, but also engenders within himself a cruel, heartless character, and even calls his lineage into question. It is the nature of the Jewish nation to act as “Rahamanim Beneh Rahamanim” – “merciful people, children of merciful people,” and thus one who fails to act compassionately in effect testifies about himself that he is not part of the Jewish Nation. A person would be sold as an Ebed Ibri if he stole and was then unable to repay the victim. In such a case, the Bet Din would make an assessment of his value as a servant, and sell him. The money paid by the purchaser would go to the victim. The Gemara establishes that a thief would be sold as an Ebed Ibri only if he was unable to pay the principal, the value that he had stolen. If he had enough money to pay the principal, but did not have enough to pay also the penalty of “Kefel” – double the amount stolen – which the Torah imposes upon a thief, then he would not be sold as an Ebed Ibri. Interestingly, however, the Rambam writes that a thief is sold as an Ebed Ibri only in a situation which requires Kefel. When a person steals from a gentile, or from Hekdesh (the treasury of the Bet Ha'mikdash), although he must obviously repay what he stole, he is not required to pay Kefel. In such situations, the Rambam writes, a thief who is unable to pay the gentile or Hekdesh is not sold as an Ebed Ibri. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870-1953), in his Eben Ha'azel, explained the logical underlying this rule. He noted that the concept of selling oneself as a servant is unique to theft; no other monetary obligation requires one to sell himself into servitude in order to come up with the money he owes. The law of Ebed Ibri was instituted by the Torah as a penalty to punish a thief. Hence, this law applies only to situations of theft that the Torah deemed severe enough to warrant the penalty of “Kefel,” and not to other situations of theft. As the thief's sale was instituted as a penalty, it is applicable only in circumstances when the penalty of “Kefel” applies. In conclusion, it is worth noting that the institution of “Ebed Ibri” served as a system for rehabilitating criminals. In today's world, criminals are imprisoned together with other criminals, which is effective in temporarily removing them from society, but contributes nothing to the criminals' growth and rehabilitation. The Torah has a thief sold as a servant so he becomes a member of a household, treated with respect and given responsibilities. This has the effect of not only facilitating the victim's repayment, but also rehabilitating the thief, as he learns to be a law-abiding, productive member of society. And thus, once he is released from service, he will not resume his criminal activities, but will rather be responsible and respectful of other people. The Torah believes in a criminal's capacity to change, and it established a system whereby this process of growth and recovery can take place effectively.

The seventh of the Ten Commandments is the command of “Lo Tin'af” – adultery, which forbids having relations with a married woman (Shemot 20:13). The Sefer Ha'hinuch presents several different reasons for this prohibition. First, he explains, G-d wants every type of creature to reproduce together with a member of its species, rather than breeding with a creature of a different kind. This extends to the family unit, as well, requiring people to reproduce only with their spouse. Secondly, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, G-d wanted to ensure that everybody knows with certainty who his or her father is, and for this reason, it is forbidden to cohabit with a woman who is married to a different man. The Sefer Ha'hinuch gives several reasons why it is important to know who one's father is, including the simple fact that this is necessary in order to fulfill the command of Kibbud Ab – respecting one's father. Moreover, if one does not know who his father is, he might end up marrying his sister, or another relative whom he is forbidden to marry. Additionally, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, adultery constitutes a form of theft, in that the adulterer in a sense “steals” his fellow's wife. And, adultery often leads to murder, as the husband might likely learn about the adulterous relationship and seek to take revenge against the adulterer. Needless to say, this prohibition applies at all times, and in all locations. It is included among the Seven Noachide Laws, which are binding even upon gentiles. As a general rule, when a man has relations with a married woman, both are liable to Henek (strangulation) if witnesses were present and the perpetrators were warned. If, however, the woman was not fully married, but was rather a “Na'ara Ha'me'orasa” – a girl who was betrothed, then they are both liable to a more severe form of capital punishment – Sekila (stoning). If the “Na'ara Ha'me'orasa” was the daughter of a Kohen, then she is liable to Serefa (burning). Different explanations have been given for why the punishment is more severe in the case of a betrothed girl. Intuitively, we would have assumed that relations with a fully married woman is a more grievous violation than relations with a girl who is only betrothed and had not yet begun marital life. Nevertheless, the punishment in the case of a betrothed girl is more severe. One explanation is that when one has a relationship with a married woman, he is concerned that the husband might find out, and this fear diminishes somewhat from the enjoyment of the sinful experience. In the case of a betrothed girl, however, the adulterer commits the act without any fear, as she is not even married yet, and thus his forbidden enjoyment is complete. This makes the sin more grievous, and hence the couple is liable to more severe punishment. There is considerable discussion among the scholars concerning the case of a man who does not die, but rather ascends to the heavens and enters Gan Eden alive – something which happened on rare occasions in earlier generations. Eliyahu Ha'nabi, for example, did not die, but rather ascended to the heavens without dying, and became an angel. Another example of Hanoch, Noah's great-grandfather, who was taken from this world to Gan Eden alive. Likewise, the great Talmudic sage Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi was brought to Gan Eden alive. The question arises as to whether the wife of such a man may remarry. Normally, of course, a married woman becomes permissible for other men once her husband dies. In this case, however, the husband never died, but on the other hand, the husband is no longer in this world. Rav Elhanan Wasserman (1874-1941) writes that this question depends on the conceptual question of whether the reality of the husband's absence from this world suffices to render the woman permissible for other men to marry, or whether it is specially the husband's death that allows the woman to be allowed to marry another man. Is a married woman forbidden for other men because she has a husband, or is she forbidden until the husband either gives her a Get or dies? Some scholars suggest drawing proof to the latter position from the Gemara's discussion in Masechet Kiddushin (13). The Gemara there raises the question as to the source of the law permitting a wife to remarry after her husband's death. Initially, the Gemara proposes explaining that since it is the husband who makes the woman forbidden for other men, by betrothing her, it stands to reason that once he is no longer alive, she is allowed to marry another man. However, the Gemara then dismisses this rationale, noting that even after the husband's death, the wife may not marry his relatives, which shows that even once the husband dies, the effects of his betrothal remain. It does not necessarily follow, then, that the husband's death automatically dissolves the effects of his betrothal with respect to the wife's status vis-à-vis other men. The Gemara concludes by noting an association drawn by the Torah between a husband's death and the giving of a Get. Just as giving a Get has the effect of rendering the women permissible for other men, likewise, the husband's death results in the woman becoming permissible for other men. This conclusion appears to indicate that a wife becomes permissible only with the husband's death. The death itself functions just like a Get, allowing the wife to marry another man, and it is thus the death, and not merely the husband's absence, which renders her permissible. Seemingly, then, the wife of a man who was taken to Gan Eden alive would not be allowed to remarry. On the other hand, the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), in his Darkeh Moshe (E.H. 17), notes that the Torah formulates the prohibition of adultery as a prohibition against relations with “Eshet Re'ehu” – “one's fellow's wife.” This phrase implies that only “Eshet Re'ehu” – the wife of a fellow human being – is forbidden, but not the wife of angel, such that the wife of somebody who ascended to the heavens alive should be permitted to marry another man. A similar question arises in situations of men who died and were then brought back to life. For example, the Gemara in Masechet Megilla tells the famous story of Rabbi Zera, who was killed by his colleague one Purim, and was then revived. Some Rabbis addressed the question of whether Rabbi Zera needed to marry his wife anew, since his death may have dissolved the marriage, thus necessitating a new Kiddushin (betrothal). Likewise, tradition teaches that at the time of Matan Torah, Beneh Yisrael's souls departed as a result of the sound of G-d's voice, and they were then revived, giving rise to the question of whether they needed to get married again after their lives were restored.

The fifth of the Ten Commandments is “Kabed Et Abicha Ve'et Imecha” – the obligation to honor one's father and mother (Shemot 20:12). The Sefer H'hinuch defines this Misva as a command to show one's parents respect and to assist them with all their needs. He explains that this command is rooted in the concept of “Hakarat Ha'tob” – gratitude, as it is appropriate to express gratitude to one's parents for bringing him into the world and for exerting immense efforts to care for him and raise him. The enormous debt of gratitude that a child owes to his parents is expressed through the obligation to respect them and to help them in any way he can. The Sefer Ha'hinuch adds that expressing gratitude to one's parents will accustom him to feeling gratitude generally, and this will lead him to a profound sense of gratitude to G-d for creating him and for providing him with all his needs. This deep-seated sense of gratitude to G-d will, in turn, motivate a person to serve Him properly. This Misva applies to both men and women. However, if a married woman faces a conflict between her husband's wishes and her parents' wishes, then her husband's wishes take precedence. The Torah in Parashat Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:3) commands, “Each man shall revere his mother and his father,” seemingly directing this command specifically to men. The Sages understood this formulation as alluding to an exception to a woman's obligation of honoring parents, namely, that she does not respect her parents' wishes when they conflict with her husband's wishes. Nevertheless, the Sefer Hasidim (Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'hasid, Germany, late 12 th -early 13 th century) writes that it is proper for a husband to forego his own honor for the sake of his in-laws' honor, and to yield to their wishes when they conflict with his own. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that one who fails to respect his parents is deserving of severe punishment, because by failing to respect his parents, he shows a lack of gratitude to G-d, as well. Furthermore, the Sefer Ha'hinuch adds, in times when Bet Din has the authority to enforce compliance with the Misvot, Bet Din could coerce a person to respect his parents. The Minhat Hinuch questions this statement, noting the principle established by the Gemara (Hulin 110b) that Bet Din does not enforce compliance with Misvot whose reward is explicated in the Torah. In the Aseret Ha'dibberot, the Torah explicitly states that honoring parents is rewarded with long life (“Lema'an Ya'arichun Yamecha”), and it thus follows that Bet Din cannot coerce a person to respect his parents. Some explain that although Bet Din cannot employ coercive measures to enforce compliance with this Misva, it can subject the person to humiliation for his failure to respect his parents in order to motivate him to obey this command. The Misva of honoring parents is among the Misvot listed by the Mishna in the beginning of Masechet Bikkurim – which we read each morning – that offer rewards both in this world and the next. The Mishna writes that a person “consumes the fruits” of these Misvot in this world, while “the principal remains intact for him in the next world.” The Gemara teaches in Masechet Kiddushin that one must respect his parents both during their lifetime and after their passing. After a parent passes on, the child is obligated to respect their memory by reciting kaddish , performing special Misvot in their merit, and fulfilling their wishes. The Zohar teaches that every week, after Shabbat, the “Neshama Yetera” (“extra soul”) which each person receives on Shabbat returns to the heavens, and it is asked whether the person gained some new Torah insight over Shabbat, or accepted a new religious commitment. When the soul reports what was learned or gained over Shabbat, an announcement is made in the heavens, “Look what the child of so-and-so said” – and at that moment, the soul of the deceased parent is congratulated on the child's achievement. A special crown is then put on the parent's head, and the parent's soul is elevated to greater heights in Gan Eden. Thus, a meaningful way to respect a parent after his or her death is to learn something new or make a new commitment on Shabbat. The Hid”a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) comments that this might explain why the Torah, in Parashat Kedoshim, juxtaposes the obligation to respect parents with the obligation to observe Shabbat: “Each man shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Shabbatot” – because one of the important ways one respects his deceased parent is by utilizing Shabbat as an opportunity for Torah learning and spiritual growth.

The Torah commands in the Book of Shemot (13:13) that if one's donkey's firstborn is a male, then the owner must redeem the firstborn donkey by giving a sheep to a Kohen. However, the Torah stipulates that if one chooses not to redeem the donkey, then he must perform “Arifa” – meaning, he must kill the donkey, and he may then not derive any benefit from the animal. He may not sell the carcass, or make any use of any part of it. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this Halacha, forbidding the owner from deriving benefit from the carcass, serves as a penalty, of sorts. Since the owner did not do what he was supposed to do – namely, give the Kohen a sheep in exchange for rights to the donkey – he is penalized by having to kill the donkey and then being denied the opportunity to derive benefit from the carcass. The Ra'abad (Rav Abraham ben David of Posquières, France d. 1198) advanced the controversial view that Arifa is not to be considered a Misva. To the contrary, he writes, one who performs Arifa instead of redeeming his firstborn donkey has committed a sin, and is guilty of denying the Kohen what is owed to him, by insisting on killing the donkey instead of giving the Kohen a sheep. The Rambam and Sefer Ha'hinuch clearly disagree, as they list Arifat Peter Hamor (killing the firstborn donkey) as one of the Misvot Aseh (Biblical affirmative commands). Moreover, the Mishna (Bechorot 13) states, “Misvat Pediya Kodemet Le'misvat Arifa” – “The Misva of redeeming” is preferred over “the Misva of Arifa.” This formulation clearly indicates that Arifa is to be considered a Misva – albeit a less preferred Misva – thus calling into question the Ra'abad's surprising opinion. The Radbaz (Rav David Ben Zimra, Egypt, 1479-1573) goes so far as to say that even if a Kohen approaches the donkey's owner and asks for a sheep for the redemption of the donkey, and the owner stubbornly refuses, the owner still performs a Misva by then killing the donkey. The Mishna in Masechet Kiddushin (56) addresses the unusual case of a person who wishes to betroth a woman with a Peter Hamor (firstborn donkey). Such a betrothal, the Mishna rules, is ineffective. The Gemara (57) explains that if Arifa had been performed, and the groom wishes to betroth the bride with the carcass, then the Kiddushin (betrothal) is ineffective because the carcass has no value. As mentioned earlier, no benefit may be derived from the carcass after Arifa, and the carcass therefore has no legal worth. Kiddushin requires giving the bride an object of value, and so it follows that one cannot betroth a woman with the carcass of a Peter Hamor after Arifa. If, however, the Peter Hamor is still alive, having been neither redeemed nor killed, then, the Gemara states, the Kiddushin might be effective, depending on the relative values of the donkey and the sheep. Upon receiving the donkey, the woman must now redeem it by giving a Kohen a sheep. Thus, if the market prices are such that a sheep costs less than a donkey, then the woman is considered as having received an object of value, and the betrothal is valid. If, however, market prices are such that a sheep is worth more than a donkey, then the woman does not benefit at all by receiving the donkey, and the betrothal is therefore ineffective. As mentioned in our discussion of the 22 nd Misvat Aseh (redeeming a firstborn donkey), the reason given for this Misva is that the redemption of the donkey symbolizes the miracle that occurred on the night of the Exodus. The ancient Egyptians are compared to donkeys, as the verse states (Yehezkel 23:20), “Asher Besar Hamorim Besaram” (“whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys”), whereas Beneh Yisrael are compared to a sheep – “Seh Pezura Yisrael” (“Israel are scattered sheep” – Yirmiyahu 50:17). By exchanging a donkey for a sheep, we commemorate the time when the firstborn of Beneh Yisrael were rescued from the plague of the firstborn in Egypt. The redemption of the donkey through a sheep symbolizes G-d's redemption of Beneh Yisrael from the Egyptians, that He “exchanged” the firstborn of Beneh Yisrael for the firstborn of the Egyptians.

In its discussion of the laws of the Korban Pesach in the Book of Shemot (12:10), the Torah commands, “Ve'lo Totiru Mimenu Ad Boker,” forbidding one to leave over meat of the Korban Pesach until morning. Meat which was left over must be burned. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Korban Pesach celebrates not merely our nation's deliverance from slavery, but also our attaining a stature of “Malchut U'gdula” – “royalty and prestige.” We must therefore conduct ourselves with regard to this sacrifice like members of nobility. Wealthy people do not normally leave food over for the next day; they eat heartily, enjoying everything that was prepared today, and discard any leftovers, confident that they will have fresh food prepared the following day. Thus, the Torah commanded us to eat the Pesach sacrifice like wealthy noblemen, not leaving anything over, and destroying any meat which is not eaten. Whereas most Misvot Lo Ta'aseh (Torah prohibitions) are punishable with Malkut (lashes), this prohibition falls into the exceptional category of “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh” – a violation which can be “corrected.” As mentioned, the Torah commands that if one violated this prohibition and left meat of the sacrifice over, the leftover meat must be burned. There is a principle that this kind of prohibition, for which the Torah prescribes a “solution” if it is violated, is not punishable with Malkut. Therefore, one does not receive Malkut for leaving over meat of the Korban Pesach. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1793) raises an interesting question regarding the status of women vis-à-vis this prohibition, in light of the fact that this prohibition falls under the category of “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh.” The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (35) establishes the rule that all Misvot Lo Ta'aseh apply equally to both men and women. Whereas certain Misvot Aseh (affirmative commands) apply only to men, Misvot Lo Ta'aseh apply also to women. The Gemara infers this rule from a verse in the Book of Bamidbar (5:6) which addresses a situation where “Ish O Isha Ki Ya'asu Mi'kol Hatot Ha'adam” – “a man or woman commits any of the sins a person can commit.” The Torah here equates men and women with regard to sins, thus indicating that they are both included in Misvot Lo Ta'aseh. The Gemara's formulation in establishing this rule is, “Hishva Ha'katub Isha Le'ish Le'chol Onashim She'ba'Torah” – “The text equates women and men, with regard to all punishments in the Torah.” Rashi explains that this refers to Misvot Lo Ta'aseh, which are punishable with Malkut. This formulation, the Peri Megadim observes, appears to suggest that women are included only in those Misvot Lo Ta'aseh which are punishable. When it comes, however, to the exceptional categories, such as “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh,” for which violators are not liable to Malkut, we should perhaps assume that such prohibitions do not apply to women. And yet, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes explicitly that women are included in the prohibition against leaving over the meat of the Korban Pesach – despite its being a “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh.” The Minhat Hinuch addresses this question at length, and his analysis lies beyond the scope of our discussion. There is also another interesting question that arises with regard to the status of women vis-à-vis this Misva. The command to burn leftover meat of the Korban Pesach would seem to fall under the category of “Misvot Aseh She'ha'zman Gerama” – affirmative commands that apply only at certain times, as it applies only the morning after the sacrifice is offered. As a rule, women are exempt from “Misvot Aseh She'ha'zman Gerama,” and thus, it stands to reason that women are not bound by the Misva to burn leftover meat of the Korban Pesach. The Minhat Hinuch observes that if so, then as far as women are concerned, the prohibition against leaving over meat of the sacrifice does not fall under the category of “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh” – because for them, there is no Misva to “correct” the violation if meat was left over. Seemingly, then, we should conclude that if a woman left over meat of the Korban Pesach, she should be liable to Malkut, because she violated a prohibition which for her is not considered a “Lav Ha'nitak La'aseh.” Once again, the Minhat Hinuch's analysis lies beyond the scope of our discussion.

The Torah introduces the Misva of Berit Mila in two contexts. First, in the Book of Bereshit (17:10), G-d commands Abraham Abinu and his descendants, “Himol Lachem Kol Zachar” – that every male must undergo circumcision. Secondly, the Torah instructs in the Book of Vayikra (12:3), “U'ba'yom Ha'shemini Yimol Besar Orlato” – “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this Misva consists of two components – the removal of the actual foreskin, and “Peri'a” – the removal of the thin membrane underneath the foreskin, to expose the flesh. Explaining the reason behind this Misva, the Sefer Ha'hinuch offers two approaches. First, he writes, the Berit Mila serves as a physical symbol on the Jew's body, a distinguishing feature which sets us apart from other peoples. Secondly, the Misva of Berit Mila shows that we were not born perfect, that we need to work to elevate ourselves. The act of circumcision needed to “perfect” the body represents the need to work towards “perfecting” our souls through the performance of Misvot. Just as our bodies are naturally defective, our inner beings, too, are naturally defective and we must constantly strive to improve and elevate ourselves. The Misva of Berit Mila applies at all times, and in all locations. It is binding only upon men; a mother is not obligated to circumcise her son or see to it that he is circumcised, as this obligation falls solely upon the father. This Misva is one of only two affirmative commands which carry a punishment of “Karet” (eternal excision from the Jewish Nation) for those who neglect them (the other being the Pesach sacrifice). If one purposefully refused to undergo circumcision, and died without having a Berit Mila, then he is punished with Karet. This refers only to a person whose father did not circumcise him or have him circumcised, and then he grew up and refused to undergo the procedure. A father is not liable to Karet for failing to have his son circumcised. The Minhat Hinuch poses a fundamental question regarding the nature of an adult's obligation to undergo Berit Mila. If, for whatever reason, a boy was not circumcised before he reached the age of Halachic adulthood – thirteen – then does the obligation of Berit Mila now transfer from his father to him, or does it remain upon the father? Do we view the child as personally responsible for his Berit Mila, or does the father continue to bear this obligation even after the son turns thirteen and is considered a Halachic adult? This question, as the Minhat Hinuch discusses, will yield several practical ramifications. First, if somebody “steals” another person's Misva, by stepping in to perform a Misva which his fellow was to have performed, then he must compensate his fellow ten Zehubim (gold coins) for the lost Misva opportunity. Therefore, we need to establish whether an adult's obligation to be circumcised is his obligation or the father's, in order to determine which of them would be considered “stealing” the Misva by performing it instead of the one on whom the obligation rests. Secondly, this question will affect the recitation of the Beracha of “Le'hachniso Bi'brito Shel Abraham Abinu,” which a father normally recites at his son's Berit Mila. If the father retains his obligation even after the son becomes a Bar-Misva, then the father recites this Beracha even if the Berit is performed after that point. If, however, the obligation is transferred to the son once he reaches the age of thirteen, then the father does not recite the Beracha if the Berit is performed after the child reaches this age. Finally, this question will determine who must incur the expense of the Berit Mila. If a Mohel must be paid to circumcise the son, then if the father continues to bear the obligation even after the child's Bar Misva, then he must pay for the Berit, whereas if it becomes the child's obligation, then the father bears no more responsibility than any other Jew to ensure that the child receives a Berit. The Minhat Hinuch suggests proving that the Misva remains the father's obligation, from the discussion of Tosafot in Masechet Kiddushin. The Gemara infers from a verse that women are not obligated to circumcise their sons, and Tosafot raise the question of why a textual inference is necessary. After all, the Misva of Berit Mila takes effect only once the child becomes eight days old, and so this Misva falls under the category of “Misvot Aseh She'ha'zman Gerama” – affirmative commands that apply only at specific times. As a general rule, women are exempt from such Misvot, and it thus seems unnecessary for the Gemara to cite a Biblical source for women's exemption from this Misva. Tosafot answer that once the eighth day arrives, the Misva of Berit Mila applies at all times, and therefore, it does not fall under the category of “Misvot Aseh She'ha'zman Gerama.” The Minhat Hinuch notes that Tosafot's answer appears to work on the assumption that the father's obligation applies forever, and does not end when the child reaches the age of thirteen. After all, if the father's obligation does end when the child becomes a Bar Misva, then Berit Mila would be considered a “time-bound” obligation, as it applies only for thirteen years. Apparently, the obligation of Berit Mila remains incumbent upon the father as long as he and his son are alive, and it does not transfer to the son when the son reaches the age of thirteen.

The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (32ha-b) brings Rav Yosef's ruling that a Rabbi is allowed to forego on the honor owed to him by virtue of his Torah scholarship. Rav Yosef reached this conclusion on the basis of the fact that Hashem Himself waived His honor when He led and guided the Jewish People when they left Egypt. If G-d Himself could forego on His honor, Rav Yosef reasoned, then certainly a Rabbi can waive the honor owed to Him. Rava challenged this line of reasoning. He said that G-d owns everything, and so He has the authority to forego on His honor. But a Rabbi represents the Torah – and the Torah is not his that he can waive the honor owed to the Torah. We are required to show honor to Rabbis because they represent the Torah – and no Rabbi has the authority to forego on the honor that we must give to the Torah. But then Rava changed his mind, and conceded to Rav Yosef's ruling. He said: אין, תורה דיליה היא – “Indeed, the Torah is his.” When a person learns and becomes a scholar, he “acquires” the Torah. It becomes his . Rav proves this from the second pasuk in Tehillim which says about a Torah scholar, ב תורתו יהגה יומם ולילה – he delves into “his Torah” day and night. A scholar is considered to “own” the Torah he learned. And so a Rabbi does, in fact, have the right to waive the honor owed to him. This is a critically important statement, one which encapsulates one of the main objectives of the holiday of Shavuot. It is about making a commitment to “own” the Torah, to build a very personal connection with the Torah. Accepting the Torah means that we do not merely flow with the tide, doing what everybody else does. It means that we make the decision to take the Torah and make it part of our essence, part of our very being. Our community has so much to be proud of in regard to religious observance. I feel, however, that many of us suffer from what we might call “the everyone disease.” We are too affected by what everyone else is doing. We are too conscious of how people are living their lives, and this can sometimes pull us to act in a way which isn't right for us, and pull us away from acting the way which is right for us. Shavuot is the time to establish that תורה דידיה היא – to make the Torah our own. It is a time to make a personal commitment that does not depend on anybody else but ourselves, a commitment to be who we're supposed to be without considering what other people are doing, or what other people are going to think of us. It's often a lot easier to just be like everyone else. It's easier to just ride along the current, to go along with the flow. But this is not how we are going to achieve. In order to achieve, we need to work hard. And part of that hard work is developing our own selves, being who we should be even if that means being different than the people around us. Let us try to cure the “everyone disease,” and make the commitment to “own” the Torah, to build a deep, personal connection to the Torah, without worrying about what other people are doing or saying.

Lashon Ha'ra : Reflecting Our Own Negativity It goes without saying that speaking lashon ha'ra (negative speech about others) is always forbidden, any day of the week. However, the Pele Yoetz writes, citing the scholars of Kabbalah, that there is extra special importance to avoiding lashon ha'ra specifically on Shabbat. He explains that on Shabbat, we are given the power to affect the highest worlds. Whereas our actions are always impactful, and wield considerable influence in the upper worlds, our deeds are particularly powerful on Shabbat, reaching the highest levels. This means that the mitzvot we perform on Shabbat have an especially powerful positive impact, and the sins we commit, Heaven forbid, have an especially harmful impact. The most common sin committed on Shabbat, the Pele Yoetz writes, is דברים האסורים – forbidden speech. On Shabbat we spend more time sitting together with other people, and we are thus more prone to speaking lashon ha'ra than we are during the busy frenzy of the workweek. Therefore, we need to pay special attention to avoid lashon ha'ra particularly on Shabbat, even more so than on other days of the week. One of the sources in Tanach for the requirement of avoid lashon ha'ra – negative speech about people – is the pasuk in Tehillim (34): מי האיש החפץ חיים אוהב ימים לראות טוב , נצור לשונך מרע ושפתיך מדבר מרמה.. Who is the man who desires life, who loves days in which to behold goodness? Guard your tongue against evil, and your lips from speaking deceit… The Arizal noted that the first letters of the words מ רע ו שפתיך מ דבר מ רמה spell the word מומם – “their blemish.” This allusion refers to the Gemara's comment in Masechet Kiddushin (70a), כל הפוסל...במומו פוסל – whoever regularly finds fault in people is guilty of that same “blemish” for which he always criticizes others. If we are prone to speaking negatively about other people, this is often because we ourselves are guilty of that negative characteristic. This is the allusion of נצור לשונך מרע ושפתיך מדבר מרמה . If we fail to guard our tongues, and are routinely pointing out other people's deficiencies, it is usually because we are plagued by those very deficiencies. Rabbenu Yonah ( Sha'areh Teshuvah , 3) illustrates this point by way of an example to a fly, which is attracted to filth. If we are “attracted” to people's “dirt,” to their negative qualities, and this is what catches our attention and draws our interest, then it is because we are like a “fly,” we are small and insignificant. It is blemished people who always speak about the blemishes of others, whereas righteous people always speak about the fine qualities of others. Rabbenu Yonah tells a story in this context of people who were walking and came upon an animal carcass. The people remarked to one another about the strong, offensive stench emitted by the carcass, while a certain wise man who was with him commented, “Look at how white its teeth are!” People plagued by faults will notice the faults in others, while pious people will notice the admirable qualities of others. One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon was Korah, who confronted Moshe Rabbenu and challenged his leadership, asking, מדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה' – “Why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of Hashem?” Korah accused Moshe of asserting his authority over Am Yisrael out of a lust for power and prestige. Startlingly, Korah chose to accuse Moshe of the one fault from which the Torah explicitly testifies to Moshe's being very far: והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה . Moshe was the humblest man in the world. If Korah was going to choose a vice to falsely ascribe to Moshe, why would he select the one vice of which Moshe was clearly not guilty? Rav Yehuda Ades, Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivat Kol Yaacov, answers based on the principle of כל הפוסל במומו פוסל . Korah himself was arrogant and craved power and prestige, and so he accused Moshe Rabbenu of this same vice. This is a very sobering concept. If we find that we are always pointing out and complaining about the faults of other people, it is because of our own faults. The higher we elevate ourselves, the less fault we find in others. Many years ago, when I was learning in yeshiva, there was a fellow who needed $10,000 for his wedding. He decided to ask ten friends, including me, to raise $1,000 each for the cause. I figured I would contact ten different people and ask each one to donate $100. My efforts were generally successful, but as I was slowly reaching my goal, I spoke to a certain person whose response was very disturbing. “All you care about is money,” this fellow said. “You're just like all the other Rabbis who care about nothing besides money. They never call just to say hello, because money is the only thing they're interested in.” Indeed, there are many people who think this way. They come to the synagogue and see a Rabbi visiting from Israel , and they know right away that he has come to collect money. And so they decide that money is the only thing the Rabbi really cares about. I needed an effective response, and Hashem sent to my mind an accurate analogy which I used to show this fellow why he was wrong. Let us imagine a man who runs a vibrant and successful hesed organization. He spends his days, and often his nights, working tirelessly to help people and families in need, including ill patients, family members of ill patients, people with financial troubles, the unemployed, and so on. Every two weeks or so, he needs to fill up his car with gas, and he goes to a certain gas station which is on the way from his house to his office. Once, when he pulls up at the gas station, the worker who always fills up his car turns to him and says, “You know, all you care about is gas. You never come here just to say hello, or for any other reason than to get gas. This is the only thing on your mind.” Of course, this is absurd. The man has a very full, busy life, which he devotes to helping people in need. He comes to the gas station because it is something he needs to do, not because this is the only thing on his mind. And so the man turns to the gas station attendant and says, “No, you have it backwards. You spend your entire day pumping gas. You're the one who has gas on his mind the whole day, and that's why you accused me of the same.” Similarly, if a Rabbi runs a yeshiva or some other institution, he is devoting his life to lofty and important goals. As a matter of necessity, he needs to raise money to support the institution, just as we all need to go the gas station from time to time to fill up our cars. It is only somebody who thinks about money all day, for whom money is the paramount matter of importance, who would accuse this Rabbi of thinking only about money. Whenever we feel inclined to make a negative remark about somebody, to point out another person's faults, let us stop and honestly ask ourselves whether that person is really a mirror image of ourselves, if we are looking at him critically because we are guilty of the same faults. The Gemara famously comments, הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמן מן היין – somebody who sees the death of a sotah , a woman who committed adultery, should vow to abstain from wine to help ensure that he does not make the same mistake. Many commentators ask, shouldn't the shocking sight of the sotah 's death suffice to deter somebody from this sin? Why does specifically somebody who saw what happened to the sotah need to take precautions to guard against immorality? The answer given is that somebody who sees evil in others is, very likely, plagued with that same malady. And so if one sees the downfall of the sotah , he might very well have this same tendency from which he must work to protect himself. The implication of this concept is that we should feel ashamed to speak lashon ha'ra . If we indulge in speaking about the faults of other people, we are, in essence, announcing to everybody listening to us that we are guilty of those faults. Let us, then, focus our efforts on trying to perfect ourselves, rather than focusing on the imperfections of other people.