Shabbat Parashat Reeh| 5767
R'ei | | 01/01/2006
Our parasha mentions, among many other mitzvot, the mitzva of ma’aser sheni, the second tithe which must be eaten only within the walls of Yerushalayim. The Torah explains: “You shall eat it before Hashem, your Lord, in the place that He will chose to have His Presence dwell there… so that you shall learn to fear Hashem, your Lord, all the days” (Devarim 14:24).
Case: The plaintiff and defendant formed a joint business project, at whose inception each invested an equal amount of money. However, the way the business is legally registered, the defendant is listed as the owner of the business and the plaintiff as his employee. The sides are in the process of dissolving their partnership. The plaintiff wants to break it up along the lines of the legal representation of the business. In other words, the defendant would receive the assets of the business and the plaintiff would be paid for unpaid work, as compensation for having his employment terminated, and the like. The defendant says that the two were full partners and that the representation of employer/employee was done to solve unrelated technical issues. He wants the dissolution to be done into equal parts without worker’s compensation. The plaintiff also claims that the defendant was negligent in his work in a manner that harmed the business and this should be reflected in the terms of the dissolution.
The Riva’s proposition that removing vegetation from the ground with the intention to return it is not a Torah prohibition because of the original weak connection may be limited to the rock with grass. Regarding the gemara’s parallel case of parfisa (apparently, a flower pot) that is removed to stilts, the connection to the ground is probably sufficient for a Torah prohibition to exist. Yet, the Riva may have been referring to both cases. These possibilities can affect the understanding of the Ohr Zarua, who rejects the Riva’s claim.
Question: I heard in a shiur given by a talmid chacham the following surprising ruling. Someone bought milk and found it to be spoiled. He decided it was not worth the bother to go to the store to return it. Soon thereafter his son announced he was going to the store, and the father asked him to return the milk. The ruling was that he was forbidden to demand a refund or replacement because he was already mochel (relinquish) this right. Is that really so?
This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of
R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m.
Hemdat Yamim is also dedicated by Les & Ethel Sutker of Chicago, Illinois in loving memory of
Max and Mary Sutker
and Louis and Lillian Klein, z"l.
May their memory be a blessing!
A weekly divrei Torah leaflet: A Glimpse at the Parasha, Ask the Rabbi, From the writings of Harav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook, zt”l, Pninat Mishpat (Jewish Monetary Law).