Shabbat Parashat Behar Bechukotai 5773
Behar | 24 Iyar 5773 | 04/05/2013
Once again, we will use this time of year to discuss the building of Yerushalayim, as the capital of Kingdom of Israel at the time of King Shlomo. This time we will discuss the “Foreign Ministry.” The pasuk states: “A house did he make for the daughter of Paroh, whom Shlomo married” (Melachim I, 7:8). We have explained in the past that the fact that Shlomo took so many wives was a sign that he was able to create diplomatic relations with many kings and leaders, who gave their daughters to Shlomo’s as wives because they recognized his greatness. Realize that the longstanding practice in days of old was that the stronger king would take the daughter of the weaker king as a wife. Shlomo’s goal was to influence many nations by means of his wives and the “embassies” opened around them, bringing them to acceptance of Hashem as the one, ultimate King. The marriage with Paroh’s daughter was the crown jewel in this regard.
Someone in shul told me last Shabbat that I should not wear shorts to shul. When I told him I learned it is permitted, he said that Shabbat is different. Why should Shabbat change the halacha?
If you see a generation in which the Torah is beloved to the people, spread the Torah, as the pasuk says: “There is one who spreads forth and receives more” (Mishlei 11:24). If you see a generation in which the Torah is not beloved to the people, gather it, as the pasuk says: “It is a time to do for Hashem; forsake your Torah” (Tehillim 119:126).
The defendant (=def) gave money to the plaintiff (=pl) to use for his financial dealings. A written document spelled out how the profits from the investment would be divided, as pl was in the practice of doing. At a later occasion, def gave pl another sum of money, without a written agreement but with the understanding that he would give 30,000 shekels profit. Pl returned the principal of the second investment along with the additional 30,000 shekels. However, now he claims that the money was given as a loan, not an investment and since they did not use a heter iska, the added money was a Torah-level violation of ribbit, upon which the halacha is that the lender must return the money to the borrower. Def claims that the money was given as an investment, whose profits were not guaranteed, in which case there is no prohibition of ribbit.
Rabanit Itah bat Chana
amongst the sick
of Klal Yisrael
This edition of
Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l
Dedicated in memory of
R'Aharon Yitzhak and Bracha
on the occasion of his yahrzeit,
and members of his family
who perished in the shoah
Al Kiddush Hashem.
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).