Shabbat Parashat Bechukotai 5772
Bechukotai | 27 Iyar 5772 | 5/19/2012
At this auspicious time of the year, after Yom Ha’atzmaut and right before Yom Yerushalayim, it is a good time to look at the interplay between a Torah-based Jewish life and national life, as finds expression in an independent state. Let us look at the matter through the actions of David and Shlomo, founders of the Kingdom of Israel in Yerushalayim. After receiving the approval of all the tribes for his kingdom in Chevron, David took the following steps. He chose a capital city that would symbolize the unification of the tribes into one political entity and captured that city, Yerushalayim, from the enemy. Yerushalayim had several advantages, including the following. It had never been inhabited by Jews of any tribe. The city connects between the sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel, as it is on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin (see Yehoshua 15:7-8). One can add in that there is an opinion among Chazal that Yerushalayim was not included in the division of the Land among the tribes.
In an article of yours in Torah Tidbits about whether a guest has to make an act of acquisition for the matza at the seder (you said he does not), you used the concept of setimat haposkim (the silence of halachic authorities) as a proof. Can you tell me why and when one can use this concept?
Rav Chisda said: Neither a good dream nor a bad dream is completely fulfilled.
The defendant (=def) is a member of a kibbutz (=pl) who served for many years as a teacher outside the kibbutz. According to the kibbutz’s agreement with its members, all salary, funds, and property that come into the member’s possession are to be given to the kibbutz. One of the benefits that a teacher receives is a fund to be used to take enrichment classes, and def took advantage of this opportunity over the years. Upon def’s retirement, he was allowed to convert remaining money in the fund to a cash payment, which came to approximately 50,000 shekels. Pl claims that this money is a form of income, which belongs to them. Def counters that this fund is earmarked for a special type of personal use, which makes it off-limits to pl. Secondly, def claims, there have been occurrences where other members of the kibbutz kept monies that likely should have gone to the kibbutz according to the letter of the law, and pl did not take action.
This edition of
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l
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).