oneg korach

?? QUIZ TIME??Answers can be found on back page.

1. Which women were crucial, both for the good and the bad, in Parshas Korach?

PAR

SH

AHKorach the Complex Rebel

Rabbi Dr Harvey BelovskiRav, Golders Green Synagogue

Kindly Sponsored לעילוי נשמת הש"ץ שלמה בן אברהם משה ז"ל לעילוי נשמת חנה בת אלעזר ע"ה

לעילוי נשמת

דוד אייזק בן שלום שכנא ע‘‘ה

“What should our response be to the Neo-Nazi Rally?” Shiur by Rabbi Brazil at Nishmas Yisroel This Sunday night 8.30-9.30pm

www.bhny.co.uk

S P O N S O R E DS P O N S O R E D

Parashas Korach narrates the focal insurgence of the desert years, identified by Chazal as the epitome of self-serving dispute.1 Yet while there is a simple, commonly-held explanation of Korach’s ‘problem’ (he claimed a right to lead the people in place of Moshe and Aharon), a quick exploration of the relevant pesukim reveals that the impetus behind the rebellion is unclear. Indeed, there actually appear to be a number of conflicting motives:

First, Korach seemed to believe that since every member of the community had experienced the revelation equally, this dispensed with the need for leadership:

They gathered over Moshe and Aharon and said to them, ‘The entire congregation are holy and God is in their midst, so why do you appoint yourselves leaders over the community of God?’2

This articulates a belief that God stood literally at their centre at Sinai, ‘spiritually equidistant’ from each of them.3 Drawing on a concept from the kabbalah of the Ari, the Ishbitzer Rebbe explains this to mean that God ‘dwelled in the midst of each of them absolutely equally.’4 As such, no formal spiritual hierarchy was now required. This idea finds its antecedent in a midrash:

Everyone heard ‘I am the Lord your God’ at Sinai… If only you had heard it, but not we, you would be right, but since we all heard it, why do you appoint yourselves as leaders?5

It is further bolstered by a well-known midrash which portrays Korach as twice defying Moshe and Aharon. First, Korach enquired whether an all-techeles tallis requires tzitzis; second, he asked whether a house filled with sifrei Torah requires a mezuzah.6 These challenges were not merely halachic mischief-making, but represented a profound challenge to the leadership of Moshe and Aharon. As the Maharal explains, tzitzis symbolise the realm of action – the concern of Aharon, whereas mezuzah refers to the realm of Torah – the remit of Moshe. Korach suggested by analogy that an entirely ‘blue’ or ‘scroll-filled’ people required the services of neither Aharon nor Moshe to lead them.7

These sources ascribe what appears to be an honourable motive to Korach – he was protesting the very existence of leadership in a world he believed demanded none.

1 Mishnah Avos 5:17.2 Bemidbar 16:3.3 Cf. Rashi to Bereishis 2:9.4 May HaShiloach I, Shelach.5 Bemidbar Rabbah 18:6.6 Tanchuma, Korach 2.7 Gur Aryeh to Rashi, Bemidbar 16:1.

Yet just two pesukim later, Moshe unmasks a less altruistic Korach, a man who not only believed in the need for leadership, but who wanted to oust Aharon as tribal head of the Levites and even challenge Moshe’s leadership of the Jewish people:

[Moshe] said to Korach and to his entire congregation, ‘In the morning God shall make known the one who is His… the one He shall choose He will draw near to Him.’8

This desire for leadership is reflected in a reading of the story in which Korach is enraged by the appointment of Elitzaphon as tribal leader of the Levitical division of Kehas.9

Given this mélange of contradictory motives, a more complex understanding of Korach’s psychology is required. This can be found in the writings of the Ishbitzer and his student, Rabbi Tzaddok HaKohen.

The Ishbitzer explains that in its optimal state, the Jewish people indeed requires no leadership.10 This is because everyone has equal access to the revealed word of God, just as Korach had indicated and as idealised in the final sequence of maseches Megillah.11 This became a reality at Sinai, and continued until the Sin of the Calf, when spiritual inequity and the need for hierarchical leadership reasserted itself. It appears that Korach mistakenly believed that the perfect reality of Sinai still prevailed and that the community was being misled by Moshe into accepting a leadership model that conflicted with its actual needs. As such, he fomented a rebellion against Moshe’s own leadership and his appointment of Aharon.

But why was Korach unable to see that the transitory perfection of Sinai had long passed and that the community now required leaders? Rabbi Tzaddok HaKohen suggests that Korach’s error was to believe himself to be perfect - free of the evil inclination12 and therefore assumed that any proclivity to rebel was untainted by personal bias: in short, that desire must express the will of God. Yet as Rabbi Tzaddok points out, in an imperfect world, no human being can ever guarantee their purity of motive; any ‘noble’ agenda may actually be the seductions of the yetzer hara and personal interest.

Korach’s ostensibly contradictory motives are now reconciled: he had duped himself into believing that he and the world were perfect and, by extension, in the illegitimacy of Moshe’s leadership. But subconsciously, he simply wanted to be the leader.

8 Bemidbar 16:5.9 Tanchuma, Korach 1, cited by Rashi to Bemidbar 16:1.10 May HaShiloach, ibid. Cf Likkutey Ma’amarim s.v. ‘Ve-Nimtza’.11 Megillah 31a.12 Pri Tzaddik, Korach 3.

OnegShabbos בס"ד

North West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets

For Questions on Divrei Torah or articles, to receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email [email protected]

Now in Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Bet Shemesh, Borehamwood, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Miami, New York, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, South Tottenham, Radlett, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich

20 June ‘15 ג' תמוז תשע”ה

פרשת קרח

פ' קרח הפטרה: שמואל א' י"א י"ד - י"ב כ"ב

פרקי אבות: פרק ד'הדלקת נרות

London 9:06 pm מוצש’’ק

London: 10:37 pm


2. Why is the parashah named after a rasha, evil person – “Korach”?

לעלוי נשמתשרה בת ר' בערל ע"ה

S P O N S O R E D

2 PIR

KE

I A

VO

S

What are our Real MotivesRabbi Shimmy MillerHead of Sixth Form at Manchester Mesivta

2

HA

LAC

HADose of Halachah

Rabbi Chaim CohenRabbi of Netzach Yisrael and teacher at King David High School H

ALA

CH

AH

BRACHAH ON MEDICATIONLECHEM MISHNE

Anyone who looks at Pirkei Avos as merely some sage advice which is passed down, like guidance from an elderly relative, is wholly missing the point of this precise guide to how one is meant to live his life. Every word is accurate and key to understanding the message that is being conveyed and every mishnah is exact in the idea it wishes to convey.

One such mishnah, with obvious relevance to our parashah, states that, "Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is a debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly."

If you looks closely at the words you will notice an obvious question. Whereas in the case of Hillel and Shammai, the mishnah names the two protagonists in the debate, in the case of Korach it just specifies his side of the debate, Korach and his assembly, and not the opposing side, Moshe and Aharon. What is the reason for this disparity and to what end does the mishnah present this divergence from the seemingly logical format of the first statement?

The answer lies in an understanding of the motives of people when they argue. When someone argues for the sake of Heaven all those on one side of

the argument are truly in unity with the goals and ideals of each other. The unified goal of all is to look for truth and a path that will lead to the most possible honour for Hashem.

Those who argue for other causes are more often than not in reality only arguing for their own sake and their own gain. No matter what they may say, ego and self preservation are their true motivations, perhaps cloaked in some other spurious intention. If that is the case, even when two or more people may seem to be on the same side, they are actually not unified at all, and are only in it for themselves.

That was the case with Korach and his assembly, and that was why Pirkei Avos lists them as two distinct views in the dispute. It was to teach us that no matter how it may have appeared, the different impetuses for argument were as evident among Korach and his multitude, as they were in contrast to Moshe. The congregation of Korach, in reality, were not arguing for a better system of governance, or the end to bias, but each individual for their own personal vested interests.

When arguing about, or for, anything, we would do well to think about what our real motives are and whether we are in truth simply looking after ourselves. Just because others may side with our viewpoint is not a proof of the validity of our opinion, but also may stem from their specific desires. Some introspection and honesty about this could pre-empt any negativity towards one another and ensure harmony amongst our fellow men.

Question: Do I need lechem mishne for seuda shelishis? If so, can I use a frozen challah? Do I need to remove it from the bag if I’m not going to eat it?

Answer: The Gemara (Shabbos 117b) writes that we use two challos to remember that two portions of man fell in the midbar before Shabbos. While according to the Magen Avraham (OC 254:23) this requirement is mid’Rabbanan, the Taz (OC 678:2), Chasam Sofer (OC 46) and Aruch Hashulchan (OC 274:1) write that it is mid’Oraisa.

Following Rashi, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 274:1) understands this to mean saying hamotzi over the two challos. The Vilna Gaon, however, follows Rashba who writes that the requirement is to cut both challos (See Mishnah Berurah 274:4; Aruch Hashulchan OC 274:3).

The Daas Zekeinim (Shemos 16:22) writes that as the bnei Yisrael would only have had one portion of man left by Shabbos afternoon, there is no need to have lechem mishne for seuda shelishis. The Rema (OC 291:4) writes that while many only use one challah for seuda shelishis it is ideal to use two challos (See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 55:2).

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 8 OC:32), Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 11:23) and Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:170) write that ideally one should only use fresh challah, though Rabbi Efraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Efraim 2:115:2) wrote that he often used a frozen challah for lechem mishne as by the end of the meal, the challah had defrosted and was perfectly edible (See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 55:n39).

Rabbi Efraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Efraim 1:201) and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 55:n38) write that ideally, the second challah should be removed from the bag before saying hamotzi.

Question: Do I need to say a brachah on medicine? What about if I need a drink in order to swallow a pill?

Answer: The Gemara (Brachos 38a) writes that one only recites a brachah on food that one eats for medical reasons if they will enjoy eating it. Likewise, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 204:7) writes that one only says a brachah before (and after) drinking water if they are doing so to quench their thirst. Thus, the Mishnah Berurah (204:42) writes that if one drank some water just to enable them to swallow a pill, they shouldn’t recite a brachah. However, if one drinks any other beverage, one would be required to recite a brachah.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 1:82) writes that if the medication itself tastes nice, then one should recite a brachah. Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Ephraim 4:54:39) writes that Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv held that if one mixed the medicine into something that tastes good, one would need to recite a brachah on it.

Rabbi Dr. Avraham Avraham (Nishmas Avraham 204:1) writes that Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 40:n191) held that one does not recite a brachah upon taking medicine that has flavouring added to make it taste sweet since the main ingredient is bitter though Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yalkut Yosef 204:10:n10) held that one should recite a brachah. Similarly, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (quoted by Rabbi Dr. Avraham) held that one should recite a brachah on pills that are coated with sweeteners.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 230:4) writes that one about to undergo a medical procedure should recite: ַאָתּה ִחָנּם רֹוֵפא ִכּי ִלְרפּוָאה ֶזה ֵעֶסק ִלי ֶשִׁיְּהֶיה ֱאֹלַקי ה' ִמְלָּפֶניָך ָרצֹון May it be your" ,ְיִהי will, Hashem, that this procedure should cure me, for You heal, regardless of merit," and afterwards, ָבּרּוְך רֹוֵפא חֹוִלים, "Blessed is the One who heals the ill" (See Mishnah Berurah 230:6).

Rabbi Dr. Avraham quotes Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg who says that one should say these prayers before and after taking medication. This would serve in place of reciting a

brachah, thus satisfying both views.


3. In Tehillim we mention about the B’nei Korach. Are they connected to Korach?

07860 017 641קהלה קדושה

חברתבני ישראל

SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ASK THE FEDERATION.

S P O N S O R E D

3 FE

DE

RA

TIO

N

קהלה קדושהחברת

בני ישראל

Asei Lecha Rav And Shailatext – Is There A Conflict?

Dayan LichtensteinRosh Beis Din, Federation of Synagogues

The Federation of Synagogues has recently launched a ShailaText service and from the voluminous amount of shailos received in the short time since, it is apparent that this is a sorely needed service. In today’s world, operating at top speed has become the norm and it is therefore not surprising to understand the immediate success of this project. But there is also a Halachic dimension to this service that should not be overlooked.

There is a concept known as Inui Hadin whose source is Choshen Mishpat 17.11, that Dayonim are urged to give a ruling as soon as they have come to a definitive conclusion and decision. While it is also true that Dayonim are enjoined to consult with greater scholars if available (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 10.2) and the same is true of Dinei Issur V’Heter (Urim v’Tumim 10) – there should not be any unnecessary delay in issuing the ruling.

Dayonim are required to be deliberate and even measured while considering the evidence - that is all prior to decision, but once a decision has been reached the ruling should be issued immediately (there are certain exceptions to this rule but these are not relevant for this discussion).

But this concept of Inui Hadin stretches the issue even further. The Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh in the beginning of Parshas Shoftim notes that the mitzvah of appointing Shoftim (Dayonim) for every city and every region (and according to some Rishonim for every tribe) follows the last mitzvah in parshas Reai of Aliyah L’regel - using the Beis Hamikdash on yom tov and bringing a korban.

What is the importance of the connection? Says the Ohr Hachaim, that since the Sanhedrin was located next to the Beis Hamikdash one could wait with their shailos or dinei Torah until before yom tov and there was no need to set up Botei Din in every town. There the Torah says judges should be set up everywhere, in every city, region, tribe etc.

And the reason for this is Inui Hadin – not to delay answering a shaila until one has come to Yerushalayim for the Aliyah L’regel.

Years ago every shtetl had its Rav and Dayan, who were available 24/7 to answer shailos. As an illustration of a Rav’s dedication to be available for shailos, consider the following: It is told over that R’Shmuel Salant, the Rav of Yerushalayim in the 1800s, would conduct his Seder very quickly in order to take a short nap to be available for shailos on Seder night. (The nap was required because after the four cups of wine one may not pasken until this has been done.)

In larger cities a new concept was introdued – Beis Horoah – a house of Halacha –an office was set up in town where there would be a rotation of Rabbonim or Dayonim to be available to the public at all times to ask shailos. This practice is prevalent in many cities to this

day. But with the changes in technology and even more significantly, the changes in lifestyle, the time has come to modernise this facility to be able to reach a Morah Horoah (a posek) very quickly, and while Rabbonim are not always able to take the phone, for example if they are in a public area and do not want to be heard, the ShailaText is the best available form of asking shailos – and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But however useful the ShailaText line is, this is no substitute for the requirement to have a Rav. In Pirkei Avos we learn Perek 1 Mishna 6 – Yehoshua Ben Prachya said: “asei lecha Rav” – make a Rav for yourself – and the Rav Bartenuro explains this as to choose a Rav, accept a single Rav and learn from him always, don’t jump around from one Rav to the other. Everyone needs a Rav – even Moshe Rabeinu asked Aharon his brother to teach him (Mechilta Bo). But the Rav Bartenuro asks - doesn’t the gemora in Avoda zara (19A) praise the learning of Torah from many teachers? Answers the Rav Bartenuro that this is only true of sevoro, logic, but when it comes to tradition or Halacha (Gemoro) one must choose his Rav and leave it at that.

On a side note, when R’Yehoshua Ben Prachya who is the author of this mishna, saw his Talmid behaving incorrectly, rejected him and expelled him despite the importance of the Rov- Talmid relationship. Who was this Talmid? He left, proclaimed himself as the messiah and Christianity was founded on him – so while R’Yehoshua Ben Prachya extolled the virtues of a Rav-Talmid relationship, it had its limits!

The personal relationship between a Rav and Talmid is dramatically shown with the relationship between R’Yochanan and his talmid Resh Lakish. R’ Yochanan lost all his children in his lifetime, but carried himself with composure, so much so that he kept a small bone of his son in his pocket to use to be menachem ovel (Berachos 5B). R’Yochanan would take out the bone and say ‘this is the bone of my youngest son. I have lost all my children but have not lost my faith’. Yet when this same R’Yochanan lost his student Resh Lakish, he broke down and lost his mind (Bobo Metzia 84A)! No clearer illustration can be shown of the significance Rav- Talmid relationship in the eyes of Chazal.

Why is this so important? A Rav teaches one how to live as a Jew - not only halacha but hashkafa, midos and derech eretz. The Gemoro in Sanhedrin 11A lists Amoraim and Tenaim who learned Derech Eretz from their Rebbes. For example the Gemoro says ‘Rebbe was teaching students and detected the pungent smell of garlic emanating from one of them. He announced ‘whoever ate the garlic should leave’. Reb Chiya, who was one of the prominent talmidim, got up and left and all the rest of the talmidim followed him out. When Reb Chiya was later questioned by Rebbe’s son Reb Shimon, Reb Chiya said that he hadn’t eaten the garlic but in order to save the embarrassment of the one who did, he pretended to be the culprit. Asks the gemoro, and where did R’Chiya learn this practice from? From Rebbe Meyer. Middos and Derech Eretz are lerned from a Rebbe or one’s Rav.

So while texting shailos may become the wave of the future one must not forget Asei Lecha Rav, make for yourself a Rav, to be a mentor and a guide, for learning how to live completely as an Oved Hashem.


4. How did Aharon know to bring the ketores, incense, to stop the plague?

לעילוי נשמתר' אליהו בן ר' אברהם הלוי ז"ל

ר' חיים יוסף בן ר' יהודה ליב ז"ל

מרת צפורה בת יעקב ע"הSponsored by their children

AVI & ALISON

S P O N S O R E D

4

HIL

CH

OS

S

HA

BB

OSDo You Know Hilchos Shabbos?

Rabbi Michoel FletcherMechaber Sefarim, Do You Know Hilchos Shabbos? and Do You Know Hilchos Brachos? Menucha Publications. Any comments: [email protected]

THERE ARE 20 QUESTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING SHORT STORY. HOW MANY CAN YOU ANSWER CORRECTLY?

It had been a busy Erev Shabbos at the Goldsteins’. Moshe was delayed at the office. Chaim had come home from cheder with a grazed knee; Chaya couldn’t find the belt that went with her new dress and the cleaning lady’s children were ill so she couldn’t come.

It wouldn’t have mattered so much, except for the fact that they’d invited their neighbours the Cohens (because Mr Cohen was away on business), two sem girls and, of course, old Mr Black who has become quite a regular since his wife went into the old age home. But, baruch Hashem,

“Ba’ah Shabbos ba’ah menuchah” and at licht bentchen everything was spick-and-span.

The first question was Chaya’s belt, which she finally found. May she thread it through the belt loops1

and tie it into a bow?2 Then Chaim decided that he needed a new plaster. May he have one?3 We are short of lechem mishne. May I take a challah out of the freezer?4 I can’t remember the seating plan. It’s a good thing I fixed it on to the fridge but may I read it out?5 Mrs Cohen gave me a bottle of wine. She said it was to pay me back for the one we lent her last week. May I accept it?6

Oy vey! I left the bathroon light off and the bedroom lights on. May I call in the non-Jewish neighbour to help?7 (two questions). I don’t believe it. Chaya left some coins on the couch just where I relax after the meal. Is the couch muktza?8 We’re only five minutes into the meal and Moshe has spilled the wine. I wiped up the red wine with a red serviette and one of the sem girls gave me a funny look. Did I do something wrong?9

1 No. (M.B. 317:18)2 If it is a bow that is usually undone within a day, it is allowed. If not, not. (M.B. 317:34)3 Yes, if the plaster is cut to size before Shabbos. Lechatchila the sticky cover should be unstuck

and stuck again before Shabbos and the plaster should be stuck on to the person, not onto itself. 4 Some allow it, some don’t. Certainly we should prepare lechem mishne before Shabbos.5 Someone who has no permission to alter what has been written. (M.B. 307:47)6 No. (M.B. 307:46)7 One can hint to a non-Jew to turn a light off (S.A. 334:25) but not on unless there is some other

light there. (S.A. 276:1,4)8 No, (S.A. 309:4), but the coins are muktza. They can be removed in an unusual way.(S.A. 311:8) 9 Yes, you should have used a serviette of a different colour. (M.B. 321:59). A paper serviette is

always permitted.

Then Mr Black wanted his avocado mashed the way his wife used to make it. Everyone discussed the problem until Mrs Cohen came up with a simple solution. What was it?10 Moshe said that he wanted to add some more mayonnaise to his chopped liver. Is that allowed?11

Three minutes’ peace and then tragedy. Avi started with his carrot. If there is one thing Avi doesn’t like, it is carrot in his soup. Can he take it out and pass it on to me?12 This is getting beyond a joke. Moshe found a broken bone in his chicken wing. The rav’s out of town but Moshe wanted to measure how far along the bone it was broken. Another funny look from the sem girl. Was she right this time?13

Baruch Hashem I had some spare meat and then we had some nice singing and a dvar Torah on the theme of

“Ba’ah Shabbos ba’ah menuchah.” Chaim went off to read (or so I thought) and we had some sensible conversation until a red-faced Chaim re-emerged with Mr Black’s hat looking more like a flying saucer than his best Shabbos hat. Can he fix it?14

At the end of the meal there was a bit of a problem when Avi wanted to put his ice-cream on the hot apple pie. Is he allowed?15 Mr Black had brought some peanuts. Could we shell them?16 Somebody forgot to say retzei in bentching. Does he need to repeat the bentching?17 We needed to bring over two mattresses from a neighbour. We made an eiruv last Pesach. It’s just that new people have moved in since then. Does it matter?18

By the time all the guests had left, I was really exhausted. But, baruch Hashem for my wonderful husband. He’d secretly washed all the dishes we needed for the rest of Shabbos and stood there with some beautiful jewellery with a note attached: For the world champion balebusteh. But could I accept it?19

10 Mash the avocado with the back of a spoon. (S.A. 321:7)11 It is only permitted with thick, not runny, mayonnaise and if it is mixed in an unusual (criss-

cross) way.(Orchos Shabbos. 6:18) 12 Certainly. (M.B. 319:6)13 No. We can measure for the purpose of a mitzvah. (S.A 306:7)(See S.A.Y.D.Ramo 53:2)

14 If it easily comes back into shape it may be repaired but not if it requires special skill to restore it. (Poskim)

15 It’s better to avoid it but there are Poskim who are lenient on whom Avi can rely if he wants. 16 Yes. (M.B. 319:24) 17 Yes. (S.A. 188:6)18 There is no problem. (M.B. 366:53)19 We are not allowed to acquire new things on Shabbos (M.B. 306:33) but to avoid ill-feeling one

can accept a present but have in mind not to to acquire it until after Shabbos.


5. Did Korach mention any regrets for his actions?

לעילוי נשמתר' חיים משה בן ר' אלימלך ז"למרת מלכה גיטל בת חיים ע"ה

Sponsored byProud Parents & Grandparents

S P O N S O R E D

5

The Weekly Halachic ConversationRabbi Avi WiesenfeldRosh Kollel, Yerushalayim and Rav at Kav Halacha Beis Horaah H

ALA

CH

A

Follow my VIDEO SHIURIM

torahanytime.com

Food, Food & More Food… but what about the Brachah? [Part 1]

As Jews we constantly eat, but there is a lot to think about before one puts the food in one’s mouth…

What brachah does one recite on SUSHI?

What brachah does one recite on CHICKEN/STEAK SALAD?

How many brachos does one recite on CEREAL & MILK/ICE-CREAM CONE?

Do you know the answers to these questions and many more that we will discuss?

There is a unique difference between how we deal with hilchos brachos and how we deal with all other areas of halachah. Throughout our lives we are confronted with many different situations that require halachic guidance for how to proceed, and often we may even find ourselves avoiding the question entirely by simply not doing, saying, or going there. However, with the halachos of brachos, when a question arises it is not so simple to just refrain from eating, and, similarly, one cannot simply wiggle out of a question by not making the brachah, as the Gemara tells us that one who partakes of this world without first making a brachah is considered to have stolen from Hashem. On the other hand, if one decides to make the brachah out of doubt, he may be making a brachah when not required and thereby uttering Hashem’s name in vain, which is also a very severe matter. Therefore, it is imperative to learn these halachos well so that when confronted with such a scenario one is fully equipped to deal with it in the proper manner.

Generally, when eating two different foods, one is required to make two separate brachos. However, sometimes only one brachah is required on both of them. This occurs when two different foods are mixed or eaten in such a way that they are looked upon as one food and one of the foods is the more prominent one, or when one is eating two foods together and one of them is the “main one”. In either of these situations, only one brachah will be required. One therefore must determine which of the foods is the more prominent or “main one”.

The Gemara (ברכות מד.) says that if one eats a very salty food and eats bread with it, he should make a brachah on the salty food and not the bread. Since the bread is being eaten only to take away the saltiness of the food, it is secondary to the food and does not require its own brachah. We learn from here that just because one is eating two different food with two different brachos, it doesn’t necessarily mean that one will be making two separate brachos. If one of the foods is the primary one, and the other is secondary to it, only one brachah will be recited.

However, there are some situations in which one will make more than one brachah when eating two foods together. It depends very much on whether there is a ‘primary’ food and a ‘secondary’ one, or if both foods are primary. Let me give you two examples:

1. When eating sushi, it is true that the fish is supposed to be the main part of the food, but there is a lot more of everything else that is eaten along with it, so what brachah does it deserve?

2. Someone once called me with the following dilemma: his wife had prepared shepherd’s pie for dinner (meat and mashed potatoes cooked together), and he only likes it with a crunchy top. There had not been time for the top to get crispy in the oven, so he wanted to sprinkle soup croutons over the top of the potatoes, thus giving it a ‘crunch’ and enabling him to enjoy his meal – but do those croutons require a mezonos brachah?

TYPE 1 - “MIXTURES”When two foods are mixed together, only one brachah is recited on eating that

mixture. The brachah is determined by whichever type is the ikkur – the primary food.

The easiest way to determine if the two foods are a proper mixture (and only one brachah will be required) is to ascertain if they are to be eaten as one food. Accordingly, if they are cooked together and have become one food, or even if they are not cooked together but are served together and generally eaten together in one spoonful, it is considered a “mixture” and only one brachah is recited.1 Mixtures may include:

1 פרמ"ג סי' ריב ס"ק א, מ"ב ס"ק א, ערוה"ש סי' ריב ס"ק ב שמלת חיים סי' קכה. ועי' גר"ז שסבר שרק

• Spaghetti Bolognaise (meat sauce and pasta),

• Chicken Salad (chicken pieces and vegetables),

• Fruit salad,

• Rice with vegetables or pieces of chicken,

• Ice-cream with fruit/nuts in it,

• Cholent.

DETERMINING WHICH FOOD IS THE IKKER – ‘PRIMARY’ ONE:

The way to determine which of the foods is the primary one is to check:

a. Whether one of them is a mezonos food – i.e., one of the five grains (wheat, barley, rye, spelt, or oats).

b. Which type is the majority of the mixture.

MezonosIf one of the two foods is mezonos (except rice2), it is always considered the

primary one due to its natural importance, even when it is the minority ingredient.3 However, if it is added to bind or decorate the main food, or even simply to give the other food a crunch but not to add taste, then it is not considered primary and a mezonos is not required. For example:

• A chocolate covered wafer will normally require a mezonos, which covers the chocolate also.

• A salad mixed with pasta – even if the majority is vegetables – will require only a mezonos to exempt the whole salad.

The Majority of the MixtureWhen one eats a mixture of two foods which are important (and neither of the

foods is mezonos), the brachah is determined by which ingredient is the majority.4

For example, the brachah for a fruit salad consisting of apples (העץ ha’etz) and bananas (האדמה ha’adamah) depends on which of the two is the majority. If there are more apples in the salad than bananas, only a העץ is required.

Q. What if one can see each component of the mixture clearly?

A. It is still considered a mixture and only one brachah is required.5

There is an opinion that holds that if the two foods that are mixed together are important and also both are clearly recognizable, two separate brachos should be made.6 Although many poskim side with this opinion,7 the Mishnah Berurah rules that only one brachah is required.8

This is one type of this halachah – next week we will explore the other type…enhancers.

Towards the end of his life, HaRav Shach, zt”l, had difficulty swallowing food. When his doctor informed him that it would be necessary to insert a feeding tube, he burst into tears. His family was amazed when he told them the reason for his anguish: “I am heartbroken to hear that I will never again be able to make a brachah before eating” he explained. Now that’s someone who understands what a brachah is!

המבושלים יחד נחשבים כתערובת.2 שו"ע סי' רח ס"ז, ערוה"ש סי' ריב ס"א, ס' ותן ברכה עמ' 65.

3 גמ' ברכות, שו"ע ריש סי' רח וסי' ריב ס"א.4 מ"ב סי' ריב ס"ק א.

5 מ"ב ס"ק א.6 חיי אדם כלל נא סעי' יג.

7 קצשו"ע נד-ה, גר"ז סי' רב סעי' יז, שו"ת שבה"ל ח"ז סי' כז-ג.8 בה"ל ד"ה אם "שספק ברכות להקל". וכ"ה בפרמ"ג בפתיחה להל' ברכות ס"ק יא, ערוה"ש ס"ק א.


6. What mitzvah comes out from Korach’s rebellion?

HA

LAC

HA

C

HA

RIT

Y

EasyG

iving – פתוח תפתח את ידך

tzedakah book cov katz meyer Mar14 COVER SPREADS v10.indd 1

11/04/2014 16:18

לעילוי נשמתר' קלמן בן משה ז"ל

Kalman Weissbraun

S P O N S O R E DS P O N S O R E D

6

HA

LAC

HA

C

HA

RIT

Y

A Practical Guide to the Halachos of Communal Obligations, Mitzvas Tzedakah and Ma’aser Kesafim[Part 12]Excerpts from the sefer Easy Giving / פתח תפתח את ידך (which includes extensive notes and comprehensive halachic sources), authored by Eli Katz and Emanuel Meyer and available from sefarim shops in NW London.

In Section A, we clarified the obligation to support the essential communal infrastructure and its precedence over mitzvas tzedakah. In Section B, we focus on the mitzvah of tzedakah and we started with the key sources, its rewards and its exclusive purpose to financially support aniyim / poor people. We then clarified who is obligated to give tzedakah, who is considered an ani, how you must provide for the full needs of an ani where possible and the four levels of tzedakah donations. This was followed by details of the prohibitions related to tzedakah and the obligation not to ignore the requests of an ani.

Section B – Tzedakah Chapter 3 – Levels of Tzedakah

A. THE EIGHT LEVELS OF TZEDAKAH.11. The highest level of tzedakah is fulfilling the passuk “ you shall

support him” (Vayikra 25:35). This means that you enable the ani to somehow earn a living, so that in the future he will avoid the embarrassment of requiring tzedakah.

a. This can be done by finding him employment, bringing the ani into your business as a partner, or making him a gift which will enable him to prop up, or even set up, his own business.

b. Lending money to an ani is another form of support, and is a separate mitzvah.

c. Anything which enables the ani to become self-sufficient, including purchasing goods and services from him, is included in this highest level, as this provides him with a living. Any premium one pays over the market rate is considered tzedakah.

d. These actions should be taken prior to an individual reaching the poverty line, but can still be applied once he is an ani.

2. The second level of tzedakah is where both the donor and the recipient are unknown to each other. This can be achieved by

giving donations to a tzedakah fund, or funnelling the donation through an institution which will distribute the funds when the aniyim turn to them for assistance.

3. The third level is when the donor knows to whom he is giving, but the recipient does not know who the donor is. This can be achieved if the donor asks a messenger to transfer the funds.

4. he fourth level is where the recipient knows the identity of the donor but the donor does not know who the recipient is. This is less embarrassing for the ani as he can meet his benefactor without being embarrassed.

5. The fifth level is giving a donation before he is asked, as this saves the ani the embarrassment of asking for a donation.

6. The sixth level is where the donor gives funds to the ani only once he has requested help.

7. The seventh level is giving the ani only part of what he requires, but with kindness and a smile.

8. The lowest level is giving money to the ani with a heavy heart, so long as the ani is not aware that the donor is upset about giving him tzedakah. If the ani is aware that the donor is upset about his donation, then the donor loses the entire merit of the mitzvah, see C.2f.

Chapter 4 – Precedence

GENERAL INTRODUCTION1. This chapter will discuss how someone who is required to give

tzedakah (see Chapter 1:B) should distribute his available funds.

2. All overdue debts, obligatory mitzvos etc. take precedence to tzedakah.

3. You must ensure that you have paid all your commitments to schools, yeshivas, seminaries, shul, groceries, and so on before giving any money to any tzedakah.

4. You may not negotiate discounts on any of your children’s school, yeshivah or seminary fees, and then donate tzedakah elsewhere.

5. owever, in all the above cases, you must donate, at least the minimum donation of one-third of a shekel (£2.53) per annum, see Section B Chapter 1:E.1.d, as well as a minimal amount to each ani who requests a donation, see Section B Chapter 2:A.4-5.

6. After paying off all personal obligations, the next order of precedence is your share of the essential communal obligations, see Section A Chapter 1:B for details.

7. After all the above has been paid off, you can proceed with giving tzedakah.

GENERAL GUIDELINES .1. You should not consistently, year after year, donate your

tzedakah to the same ani to the exclusion of all other aniyim, nor to the same member of your family to the exclusion of all other members.

2. When you distribute tzedakah funds it is preferable to diversify, with small donations to many aniyim, rather than large donations to a few aniyim. The Rambam explains that by giving many donations a person becomes a more charitable person.

3. Consequently, you should budget your donations in order to enable you to donate to many aniyim.

To Be Continued ....


7. How many different factions made up Korach’s camp?

S P O N S O R E D

Kindly Sponsored by theRACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST

7

MiYemini MichoelRabbi Michoel JablinowitzRosh Yeshiva Ateret Yerushalayim

PIR

KE

I A

VO

S

אבות פרק ד משנה יזרבי שמעון אומר שלשה כתרים הן: כתר תורה, וכתר

כהנה וכתר מלכות, וכתר שם טוב עולה על גביהן.

Rabbi Shimon teaches us that there are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown

of Kehunah (priesthood) and the crown of Malchus (royalty) and the crown of a good

name is the greatest of all. This statement of Rabbi Shimon is inherently contradictory. First

he mentions that that there are three crowns, and then he concludes by mentioning a fourth, Keser Shem Tov, as being the greatest of them all. Are there three crowns, or are there four?

Further, the Rambam teaches in Hilchos Talmud Torah, Chapter 3, Halachah 1, that there are three crowns which were given to Bnei Yisrael: Keser Torah, Keser Kehunah, and Keser Malchus. And the Rambam gives his well known explanation that while Keser Kehunah is limited to the line of Aharon HaKohen, and Keser Malchus is limited to the line of David HaMelech, Keser Torah is available to all. The Rambam concludes that the greatest of all the crowns is Keser Torah. How could the Rambam disagree with the Tana Rabbi Shimon who teaches that Keser Shem Tov is the greatest of all?

The answer is that the Rambam is based on the Gemara in Yoma 72B which teaches that there were three crowns on the vessels in the Mishkan. The crown on the Aron represents Keser Torah, the crown on the Mizbeach HaZahav golden altar represents Keser Kehunah, while the crown on the Shulchan represents Keser Malchus. And the Gemara concludes that Keser Torah is the greatest of the three. The Gemara and the Rambam are dealing with the basic obligations of a Jew and their relative significance.

The Tana Rabbi Shimon is teaching a different point. This Mishnah is in Avos and therefore its purpose is to teach us a fundamental point of mussar. Every one desires a good name. It is a basic need of people to have others think well of them. Rabbi Shimon, though, is teaching us that Keser Shem Tov is not something which can be pursued and achieved on its own like Keser Torah can. The

Mishnah states that Keser Shem Tov is "Oleh al Gabeihen". The commentators teach that this doesn't mean it's better than the others. Rather it is to be understood literally. It rises up on their backs. The only way to achieve a good name is by acquiring the other crowns. Therefore, when one has achieved these crowns, then he automatically acquires a good name for himself. But acquiring a good name through deeds which are only designed to give him a good name is impossible. It is only through the aforementioned crowns.

One might ask, but the Rambam taught us that only Keser Torah is available to all. How can someone who is not descended from Aharon HaKohen or David HaMelech achieve Keser Kehunah or Keser Malchus? It would seem that Rabbi Shimon is teaching that even though one can't achieve Kehunah, he can achieve high levels of avodah. When Shimon HaTzadik teaches that one of the three pillars of the world is avodah, he is speaking to all of us. By strengthening our tefillah and our overall relationship with Hashem we can achieve Keser Kehunah. And by giving to others and taking responsibility for those in need, we can achieve Keser Malchus. The role of a King is to take care of his subjects, and without actually being kings we can take on such roles and achieve Keser Malchus. And through such deeds, along with Keser Torah, that one can ultimately achieve Keser Shem Tov.

The Chasid Ya'avetz points out that Keser Kehunah and Keser Malchus are not devoid of Torah, but Keser Torah is included within them. The passuk in Malachi (2:7) says, Ki sifsei kohen yishmeru da'as v'Torah yevakshu m'pihu. The role of the Kohen includes teaching Torah. And David HaMelech says in Tehillim (119: 56), Zos haysah li ki pikudecha natzarti. Part of the kingship is being immersed in Torah.

This, then, is the point of Rabbi Shimon. He is dealing specifically with how one achieves a good name. And he is teaching us a fundamental truth; a good name for a Jew means to achieve the three basic crowns of serving Hashem, Torah, Kehunah, and Malchus. It can't be achieved independently of them. But as the Rambam teaches, the greatest of them all is Keser Torah, and even Keser Kehunah and Keser Malchus, ultimately include devotion towards, and teaching, Torah as well.

QUI

Z TI

ME

ANSW

ERS IDEAS FOR ANSWERS

1 The wife of On Ben Peles saves him while the wife of Korach encourages him to rebel leading to his death. (See Gemara Sanhedrin 109b-110a)

2 The mishnah in Avos (4:1) tells us that a chacham, wise man, learns from everyone - what to do and what not to do. Perhaps the parashah is called after Korach, a rasha, to remind us of the severe punishment meted out to those who oppose the chosen leaders by Hashem. The idea of not mentioning a rasha is in order not to remember them for the good. However, to remember then for the bad need not be a problem as this is in line with the reason not to mention them.

3 They were his sons. They are mentioned in Tehillim since they prayed at the last moment and did teshuvah and managed to climb out of being entirely swallowed up by the depths of the earth. A special place was allocated to them above Gehinom. These Tehillim express their prayers.(Gemara Sanhedrin 110a )

4 Moshe was told this secret by the Malach Hamaves, Angel of Death, himself and he instructed Aharon to carry it out! This was after the giving of the Torah when all the angels gave Moshe a present. (Gemara Shabbos 89a)

5 The Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) brings a story about an Arab who showed Rabba Bar Bar Chana a place where smoke was coming out of the ground. He told him to listen and he heard people saying Moshe and the Torah is true and we are incorrect. The Arab said that this takes place every thirty days, i.e. every Rosh Chodesh (Rashi to Bava Basra 74a).

6 The mitzvah not to be like Korach and his congregation that expresses the idea of strengthening strife and creating arguments.7 We see from the different punishments that Korach's camp was composed of three different factions: Korach and his family, the

250 Sages and Dasan and Aviram. They each had a different punishment. The 250 Sages were burnt, Dasan and Aviram were swallowed up and Korach died in a plague. (See Gemara and Rashi Sanhedrin 110a according to R' Yochanon.)

8

PAR

SH

AHWhy was Korach so convincing?

Rabbi Saul ZneimerTeaches for Outreach Programmes, Financial Adviser

Please could you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home — as there have been few left in shuls.

Please Dispose Of This Sheet Appropriately As It Contains Words Of Torah

Looking back at Korach’s rebellion, with the benefit of hindsight and the words of Chazal, we know for certain that he was mistaken. The protagonists who were swallowed up declared ‘Moshe emes ve’Toraso emes!”

But at the time, Korach’s claims clearly had a genuine appeal to the 250 leaders of Am Yisrael who followed him and who refused Moshe Rabbenu’s attempts to talk them down. Rashi quotes the Medresh Tanchuma. Korach made them all put on tallisos made completely of techeles coloured wool. They stood in front of Moshe Rabbenu and asked him if such a tallis still needed tzitzis. He said yes. They laughed at him and challenged his view.

The techeles coloured tallisos are clearly a metaphor for the people. Moshe Rabbenu and Aharon HaKohen were the unnecessary tzitzis.

What had Korach said to get them to agree to join in this rebellion? Many mefarshim explain that Korach – at least on the surface - appealed to their sense of fairness. Ki kol ha eda kulam kedoshim. All the people are holy – what gives you Moshe and Aharon the right to ‘lord it’ over us. But, given the status of Moshe Rabbenu as the navi of Hashem and his unique role in yetzias Mitzrayim and kaballas haTorah, it is still difficult to understand how they fell for, what appears to us to be, a simple mistake. We need a more compelling account of their error.

Rav Tzaddok HaKohen in Pri Tzaddik quotes the Ari, z”l, who refers us to an esoteric idea which we see echoed in the Gemara at the end of Taanis. ‘In asid lavo, HaKadosh Baruch Hu will make a circle dance for the tzahdikim. Hashem will sit in the middle and they will point (to Him) with their finger.’ He explains this to mean that through their completely accepting Hashem’s malchus, the tzaddikim crown Him with a round crown, representing the ohr makif – the all-encompassing light – which is then enjoyed as a ruchniyus pleasure by all of them, equally. In a circle there are no ‘madregos’. Everyone is the same, with no distinction; no leaders and no followers. And in this circle, all have equal access

to Hashem’s Presence. Rav Tzaddok says that the claim of Korach was that matan Torah, when all of Bnei Yisrael heard the words Anochi Hashem Elokecha was a similar experience. This then is an accurate description of the people’s status. The Torah tells us that Hashem spoke panim bepanim imachem – face to face with (all) of you. Furthermore we know ‘vayichan sham Yisrael’

– ‘K’ish echad belev echad’. And the Jewish people camped there [camped is singular in the verse, which is explained as] ‘like one person with one heart’. No madregos; each one present had the same experience. Each one was just as special as the next. Even a maidservant saw visions that Yechezkel would never see. Korach’s claim was far from empty. It had a strong echo of truth about it. It connected the rebels to a previous experience they knew all about.

So if Korach was so right, how was he also so wrong?

Am Yisrael had indeed experienced Kabbalas HaTorah. But the moment had passed and they had lost the exalted level they had reached. As Rav Tzaddok says ‘achar kach nisbatel madregah zu, velo yihyeh hahisgalus hazeh ad l’asid’. They fell from this level, which won’t be repeated until the future time.

We can perhaps develop this by saying that after the Chet Ha Egel the people badly needed the specific leadership skills of Moshe Rabbenu, Aharon HaKohen and the appointments made al pi Hashem. The words ‘ki kol ha eda kulam kedoshim’ were intended by Korach as a description of their madregah. He missed the point that the Torah itself, after matan Torah and the Chet HaEgel, says

‘kedoshim tiyihu’, ‘become holy’, which is an instruction for what their madregah should be. Aim to be kedoshim, because although you once were, you are not so any longer.

There is clearly a point that stands out from here for our careful consideration. How easy it is for us to be swayed by an argument with a few grains of truth, especially one where we think we know something of what is going on. Our personal predilections

– our negios – can be particularly hard to identify when we can persuade ourselves that we had the experience and we really do understand.

oneg korach

Documents