Shabbat Parashat Vayakhel Pekudei 5773
Vayakhel | 27 Adar 5773 | 3/9/2013
Were the building of the Mishkan and the commandments to bring korbanot a response to the Sin of the Golden Calf, as a way to deal with the nation’s diminished spiritual level? Or, does the Mishkan embody the fundamentally ideal form of service of Hashem? This topic has been the subject of extensive debate by the greatest Jewish thinkers. This week, we want to address this question from a slightly different angle than usual.
I understand that one does not make a beracha on medicine. This raises a question for Orthodox users of homeopathic medicines (which are normally sweet). Should they listen to their homeopaths, who consider it medicine, and not make a beracha or listen to conventional doctors, who say it is not medicine, and make a beracha on it?
“[David said to Shaul: If Hashem incited you against me …” (Shmuel I 26:19) – Rav Elazar said: Hashem said to David: “You call Me an inciter? Behold, I will cause you to stumble in a matter that even schoolchildren know, as the pasuk says: ‘When you will count the heads of Bnei Yisrael, each man shall give atonement for his soul’ (Shemot 30:12).” As a direct result, it says “Hashem placed a Satan on Israel [and it incited David to count Israel]” (Divrei Hayamim I 21:1). It is also written: “[The anger of Hashem continued to be aroused at Israel] and it incited David in them, saying: ‘Go count Israel’” (Shmuel II 24:1). When David counted them, he neglected to take from them the atonement.
Neighbors jointly presented an expansion plan for their apartments to the Urban Planning Board and received permission for their building plans. The plaintiffs (=pl) received permission to build rooms totaling 60 square meters. The defendants (=def), who are their upstairs neighbors, asked for permission only to close off a 20 m. balcony and use the roof of pl’s extension for open balconies. Originally, pl and def planned to have their work done jointly, sharing the costs. However, def became short on money and delayed their plans, and pl built on their own and presented def with a bill of 85,000 shekels for their part in the costs. Def paid 19,000 shekels without receiving a waiver for further pay. Years later, just before the permission to build expired, def sold their apartment, and the buyers built immediately. Pl are now suing for the remaining 66,000 shekels. Def responds that their share of the building expenses should not be divided evenly with pl, because pl made more serious use of the building. Furthermore, def didn’t use the building at all, as only the buyers built on the extension. According to the law, pl should also pay def for using more joint area than def did.
Rabanit Itah bat Chana
Mr. Shmuel ben
Rosa Shoshana Rosenhak
amongst the sick
of Klal Yisrael
This edition of
Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l
to the memory
Chayim HaCohen Kaplan
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).