Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5768: Mitzvah 75
November 26, 2007
Mitzvah 75 – It is a positive commandment to make a parapet about one’s roof, and to remove every stumbling block and possible cause of accident from one’s house.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “then you shall make a parapet for our roof, that you shall not bring blood upon your house, etc.” (Deut. 22:8) Whoever leaves his roof without a parapet disobeys a positive commandment. So too with anything that constitutes a stumbling block, posing danger of death, such as a well or a pit. A barrier ten handbreadths high has to be made about it, and the barrier has to be strong enough to allow leaning on it without its collapsing. It is also forbidden to raise a bad [vicious] dog in one’s house. In Sefer Haredim, it is written, “When one bears this religious duty in mind every day, and sees if it requires any repair or improvement, it will be reckoned for him as though he fulfills the duty every day. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
The Sages have taken a very simple law and expanded it into one of the most important teachings in Judaism. Let us first examine the law. In ancient Israel, most houses had flat roofs that served as a meeting place and even a sleeping place when the weather was good. If the weather was warm outside or too hot inside, families would gather on the roof to escape the heat. The parapet, the small wall around the edge of the roof was a safety measure, to insure that nobody would accidentally fall off. Clearly it has to be strong enough to lean against. A roof that had no parapet was a serious accident waiting to happen.
The Sages of the Talmud however, saw that this law as the basis for an entire corpus of safety legislation. The end of the verse from Deuteronomy, for the sages, clearly implies that anything that may bring “blood upon your house” had to be addressed with proper safety measures. If you dug a pit, you had to put a fence around it so nobody would fall in. The same would apply if you dug a well. If you had a vicious dog, you could not rely on the chain or rope to prevent an accident. One could not thus own a vicious dog, nor keep an ox that had a history of goring other people. If you could not restrain your vicious animals, you were liable for any damages they caused.
It is not a long stretch to see that all manner of safety needs can be added to this law. A Jew should not live in an apartment that does not have child guards to prevent a child from leaning on a screen and falling out the window. One should not live in a tall building without proper fire escapes, or smoke detectors or even carbon monoxide detectors if they are appropriate. You should not chain your doors shut or place bars on the widows without making fire escape plans explicit. The fire plans themselves are included in this law. Poisons in the home would have to be clearly marked and kept out of reach of children. And homes with small children should be “baby proofed”. One could even say that it includes a provision that would require all passengers in a car driven by a Jew to wear seat belts.
If the prime directive of Judaism is to preserve life, than clearly these safety rules are designed to do just that. To endanger life would be to violate this prime directive. Little wonder that the Sages expanded this law to include all manner of safety instruction. They felt that everyone was responsible for the well being of those who lived in or were visiting their home.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
5-5768: Mitzvah 74
Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5768: Mitzvah 74
November 19, 2007
Mitzvah 74 – It is a positive commandment of “sending away from the nest.”
Hafetz Hayim: Which means that if someone finds a bird’s nest on the way, with the mother-bird sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, and he wishes to take them, he as to send away the mother-bird first and take them afterward; for Scripture says, “you shall surely send the dam away” (Deut. 22:7) and afterward, “and the young you may take for yourself.” (Ibid) The way to send it off is by taking hold of its wings and making it fly. If one sent it away and it returned, even many times, he is yet obligated to send it off. If it was flying about, if its wings touched the nest, he would have the duty to send it away; and if not, he would be free of any obligation to send it off. The requirement of “sending away from the nest” applies only to a pure (kosher) fowl, and one which is not prepared (not in his possession – which means that a person finds it on the way in some tree or on the ground); and specifically with fledglings which do not fly as yet and need their mother-bird, or with eggs that are not infertile and rotting. If a person transgresses and takes the mother-bird with the young, he is to fulfill the positive commandment and send the dam off. If he ritually slew the mother-bird or it died before he sent it off, so that he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment, he has thus violated a negative commandment. So likewise if someone came along and seized the mother-bird from his hand and sent it away, or it fled out of his hand without his knowledge (against his wish)- he is to receive whiplashes for violating the negative commandment, since he plainly did not observe the positive commandment. If he took the mother-bird and clipped its wings so that it could not fly and then he sent it off, he should be given whiplashes for disobedience, and he is to keep it with him until its wings grow back, and then he is to send it away. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
The Torah is very clear on this law. That is why the Hafetz Hayim is so direct about it. It is one of the few laws in the Torah that have a reward for observance. The Torah insists that one who sends the mother-bird away will live a long life.
This is one of a series of laws that are part of the rules concerning “Tzar Baalei Hayyim” “Pain given to animals”. The Torah understands that if we are cruel to animals, than it becomes easier to be cruel to each other. A mother-bird will defend her eggs and fledglings, a sign that she has “maternal” concerns for her offspring. It would be cruel not to push the mother aside and take her eggs. It would be cruel to the mother bird, and an act of cruelty on out part if we fail in this task. If we can be so cruel to another animal, it is only fitting that such a person receives lashes for his or her insensitivity. Perhaps the pain suffered by lashes will help instill a kind of concern for the pain he or she causes others, human and animal. As an act of kindness to animals, we send away the mother-bird, we don’t cook a baby animal in its mother’s milk and we don’t yoke an ox with a donkey when plowing since the stronger one will have to drag along the weaker animal. We don’t even allow the muzzling of an ox on the threshing floor since to be working with the grain and not allowed to eat it would also be cruel to the ox. We have to be sensitive to the needs of our animals like we would want to be sensitive to the needs of those humans who work for us.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the way this law of the mother-bird was used for a larger problem in Jewish Law. The reward for sending the dam away is that you receive long life. The story is that Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya was walking one day and saw a man holding a ladder by a tree. His son was on the ladder reaching for a bird’s nest. The father said, “Remember to send the mother bird away” and the Rabbi noted that this child would live a long time since he was obeying two commandments that have the same reward, Sending the mother bird away, and honoring parents both have the reward of long life. The boy sent the mother bird away, and then, tragically, he lost his footing, fell from the tree and died. It is said that this was the cause that caused Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya to become an apostate. G-d had not fulfilled the reward and suddenly the Rabbi could no longer believe in G-d. If G-d could not be relied upon to fulfill the reward, then “There is no Judge and there is no Justice” thus Elisha abandoned his faith. (There is a classic book on this issue, “As a Driven Leaf” by Milton Steinberg. This moment is the center of the book and it deals with the issues of G-d in the world and our experience of G-d. It is one of my favorite books of all time)
The issue has not gone away after all these years. Why bad things happen to good people is one of the realities of our world and it insures that our faith is always subject to question and debate. Can we believe in G-d in spite of the injustice of this world? If not, how is faith possible? If we can, how can we explain the injustice? Abraham’s demand that “The Judge of the world act justly” is a cornerstone of Judaism. Without it all of Jewish Law is impossible. There are many answers that have been come forth over the centuries. If we are to be secure in our faith, we will need to find an answer for ourselves lest we slide into heresy, as did Elisha. The stakes are very high, and we will need to be honest and considered in our answers. I don’t have an answer for you; Judaism demands that you study to find the answer that works best for you.
5-5768: Mitzvah 74
November 19, 2007
Mitzvah 74 – It is a positive commandment of “sending away from the nest.”
Hafetz Hayim: Which means that if someone finds a bird’s nest on the way, with the mother-bird sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, and he wishes to take them, he as to send away the mother-bird first and take them afterward; for Scripture says, “you shall surely send the dam away” (Deut. 22:7) and afterward, “and the young you may take for yourself.” (Ibid) The way to send it off is by taking hold of its wings and making it fly. If one sent it away and it returned, even many times, he is yet obligated to send it off. If it was flying about, if its wings touched the nest, he would have the duty to send it away; and if not, he would be free of any obligation to send it off. The requirement of “sending away from the nest” applies only to a pure (kosher) fowl, and one which is not prepared (not in his possession – which means that a person finds it on the way in some tree or on the ground); and specifically with fledglings which do not fly as yet and need their mother-bird, or with eggs that are not infertile and rotting. If a person transgresses and takes the mother-bird with the young, he is to fulfill the positive commandment and send the dam off. If he ritually slew the mother-bird or it died before he sent it off, so that he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment, he has thus violated a negative commandment. So likewise if someone came along and seized the mother-bird from his hand and sent it away, or it fled out of his hand without his knowledge (against his wish)- he is to receive whiplashes for violating the negative commandment, since he plainly did not observe the positive commandment. If he took the mother-bird and clipped its wings so that it could not fly and then he sent it off, he should be given whiplashes for disobedience, and he is to keep it with him until its wings grow back, and then he is to send it away. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
The Torah is very clear on this law. That is why the Hafetz Hayim is so direct about it. It is one of the few laws in the Torah that have a reward for observance. The Torah insists that one who sends the mother-bird away will live a long life.
This is one of a series of laws that are part of the rules concerning “Tzar Baalei Hayyim” “Pain given to animals”. The Torah understands that if we are cruel to animals, than it becomes easier to be cruel to each other. A mother-bird will defend her eggs and fledglings, a sign that she has “maternal” concerns for her offspring. It would be cruel not to push the mother aside and take her eggs. It would be cruel to the mother bird, and an act of cruelty on out part if we fail in this task. If we can be so cruel to another animal, it is only fitting that such a person receives lashes for his or her insensitivity. Perhaps the pain suffered by lashes will help instill a kind of concern for the pain he or she causes others, human and animal. As an act of kindness to animals, we send away the mother-bird, we don’t cook a baby animal in its mother’s milk and we don’t yoke an ox with a donkey when plowing since the stronger one will have to drag along the weaker animal. We don’t even allow the muzzling of an ox on the threshing floor since to be working with the grain and not allowed to eat it would also be cruel to the ox. We have to be sensitive to the needs of our animals like we would want to be sensitive to the needs of those humans who work for us.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the way this law of the mother-bird was used for a larger problem in Jewish Law. The reward for sending the dam away is that you receive long life. The story is that Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya was walking one day and saw a man holding a ladder by a tree. His son was on the ladder reaching for a bird’s nest. The father said, “Remember to send the mother bird away” and the Rabbi noted that this child would live a long time since he was obeying two commandments that have the same reward, Sending the mother bird away, and honoring parents both have the reward of long life. The boy sent the mother bird away, and then, tragically, he lost his footing, fell from the tree and died. It is said that this was the cause that caused Rabbi Elisha ben Abulya to become an apostate. G-d had not fulfilled the reward and suddenly the Rabbi could no longer believe in G-d. If G-d could not be relied upon to fulfill the reward, then “There is no Judge and there is no Justice” thus Elisha abandoned his faith. (There is a classic book on this issue, “As a Driven Leaf” by Milton Steinberg. This moment is the center of the book and it deals with the issues of G-d in the world and our experience of G-d. It is one of my favorite books of all time)
The issue has not gone away after all these years. Why bad things happen to good people is one of the realities of our world and it insures that our faith is always subject to question and debate. Can we believe in G-d in spite of the injustice of this world? If not, how is faith possible? If we can, how can we explain the injustice? Abraham’s demand that “The Judge of the world act justly” is a cornerstone of Judaism. Without it all of Jewish Law is impossible. There are many answers that have been come forth over the centuries. If we are to be secure in our faith, we will need to find an answer for ourselves lest we slide into heresy, as did Elisha. The stakes are very high, and we will need to be honest and considered in our answers. I don’t have an answer for you; Judaism demands that you study to find the answer that works best for you.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
4-5768: Mitzvah 73
Talmidav Shel Aharon
4-5768: Mitzvah 73
November 11, 2007
Mitzvah 73 – It is a positive commandment to render judgment about heritages [inheritance of landed property]
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says, “If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” (Num. 27:8). However, a son has priority over a daughter; and all one’s male descendants have priority over a daughter. A daughter and all her male descendants take priority over the dead man’s father. Included in this commandment is the rule that a firstborn son is to inherit a double share of the legacy. And a husband inherits his wife’s property buy the law of the Sages, taking precedence over all others in her legacy. It applies everywhere and in every time.
The Torah is very clear about the laws of inheritance. Only sons can inherit from their father. Their first responsibility is to their unmarried sisters and they must provide for them until all the daughters are married even if it means the sons must go begging in the street. If there are no sons, then grandsons inherit down the male line. If there are no male descendants, then the legacy passes down to the daughters according to the ruling given to the daughters of Zelofchad in the Book of Numbers. If the daughter has died, it goes down her male descendants. If there are none, than the man’s father is next to inherit. It goes down his male line.
According to the Torah, the legacy is divided into equal parts according to the number of sons (or daughters if there are none) and the firstborn son gets a double portion and the rest get a single portion. Thus if there are three sons, the estate is divided into four equal parts, two going to the firstborn and one each to the other two sons.
Finally, the Sages noted that there is nothing in the Torah about what happens to a wife’s estate when she dies. They ruled that her entire estate is transferred to her husband upon her death. This assumes that she dies before her husband. If he dies first, she keeps her property and collects the 200 zuzim in land that is promised in her ketubah. This legacy is paid even before the sons inherit. It is the first charge against the estate, even before his other creditors.
This is how Jewish law deals with inheritance. There is no probate and the order cannot be changed. Yet we note that Jacob buys the birthright, the double portion from Esau and both Abraham (who gives the double portion to Isaac and not Ishmael) and Jacob (who gives the double portion to Joseph not Reuvan) ignore this law.
Modern Jewish Law avoids this whole arrangement by using the common will that acts as if the person will give his estate away as a gift to whomever he wishes and there is then nothing for anyone to inherit. In general, financial matters such as these follow the rules of the lands in which Jews live unless they have ritual significance. The laws of inheritance do not and that is why, while they remain in effect, they are most often ignored and an estate is divided according to the wishes expressed in the will of the deceased.
I am sure that if you are or were an attorney with a practice in family law, than all of this may be historically interesting. I am not aware that there is anyone today, who follows these laws.
4-5768: Mitzvah 73
November 11, 2007
Mitzvah 73 – It is a positive commandment to render judgment about heritages [inheritance of landed property]
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says, “If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” (Num. 27:8). However, a son has priority over a daughter; and all one’s male descendants have priority over a daughter. A daughter and all her male descendants take priority over the dead man’s father. Included in this commandment is the rule that a firstborn son is to inherit a double share of the legacy. And a husband inherits his wife’s property buy the law of the Sages, taking precedence over all others in her legacy. It applies everywhere and in every time.
The Torah is very clear about the laws of inheritance. Only sons can inherit from their father. Their first responsibility is to their unmarried sisters and they must provide for them until all the daughters are married even if it means the sons must go begging in the street. If there are no sons, then grandsons inherit down the male line. If there are no male descendants, then the legacy passes down to the daughters according to the ruling given to the daughters of Zelofchad in the Book of Numbers. If the daughter has died, it goes down her male descendants. If there are none, than the man’s father is next to inherit. It goes down his male line.
According to the Torah, the legacy is divided into equal parts according to the number of sons (or daughters if there are none) and the firstborn son gets a double portion and the rest get a single portion. Thus if there are three sons, the estate is divided into four equal parts, two going to the firstborn and one each to the other two sons.
Finally, the Sages noted that there is nothing in the Torah about what happens to a wife’s estate when she dies. They ruled that her entire estate is transferred to her husband upon her death. This assumes that she dies before her husband. If he dies first, she keeps her property and collects the 200 zuzim in land that is promised in her ketubah. This legacy is paid even before the sons inherit. It is the first charge against the estate, even before his other creditors.
This is how Jewish law deals with inheritance. There is no probate and the order cannot be changed. Yet we note that Jacob buys the birthright, the double portion from Esau and both Abraham (who gives the double portion to Isaac and not Ishmael) and Jacob (who gives the double portion to Joseph not Reuvan) ignore this law.
Modern Jewish Law avoids this whole arrangement by using the common will that acts as if the person will give his estate away as a gift to whomever he wishes and there is then nothing for anyone to inherit. In general, financial matters such as these follow the rules of the lands in which Jews live unless they have ritual significance. The laws of inheritance do not and that is why, while they remain in effect, they are most often ignored and an estate is divided according to the wishes expressed in the will of the deceased.
I am sure that if you are or were an attorney with a practice in family law, than all of this may be historically interesting. I am not aware that there is anyone today, who follows these laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)