Shabbat Parashat Miketz| 5767
Miketz | | 1/1/2006
Yehuda and Yosef’s struggle for leadership of Yaakov’s family and the future nation of Israel reaches a climax in our parasha. Last week, we saw how both took falls. Yosef literally found himself in a bor (pit) twice. Once, where his brothers threw him; second, when he was put in jail after Potiphar’s wife falsely accused him. Yehuda also fell, in his case, from prominence. His brothers blamed him for the sale of Yosef, and his daughter-in-law caused him to make an embarrassing admission.
Case: The plaintiff (=pl)and the defendant (=def)ended the business partnership between them. Def continued the business but did not immediately pay pl. Def was obligated to swear how much of his money was pl’s share of the business and since he did not swear, beit din obligated him to pay a third of the claim. Pl demands reimbursement for the expenses incurred because def did not pay until beit din ruled, for his failure to appear at some hearings, and for the profits that the joint money earned during the period of adjudication.
The Avnei Nezer (OC I, 180) explains that the different melachot of connecting two objects apply only when the one who connected them intended them to remain such. By the time the connection is to be ended, it is as if the connection was already severed. This concept is not an example of a thought undoing an action, which is difficult to do. Rather, from the outset, the intention limited the connection’s duration. Once we proved that regarding tofeir, there is a need for a measure of permanence, we can apply the existing rule that mere intention can indicate the melacha’s lack of permanence.
This edition of
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).