When I read that the US will give close to 50 million to
Hamas for “humanitarian aid” even as they continue to fire rockets at Israel, I
wonder: are Obama and Kerry really that naïve as to believe that
this money will not be used for weapons, are they incompetent, or is it a calculated
and deliberate attempt to once again undermine Israel’s interests? (I ask myself that question about a lot of the things this administration does.)
I mentioned the Shmira Project yesterday, but there are many
other things you can do to help Israel in this time of crisis. I see A Mother In Israel has a helpful post
with 21 suggestions.
A few weeks ago, before the latest round of fighting
started, my wife and I visited the NY Historical Society (a small, overlooked
museum that is really worth a visit if you’ve never been there) where there is
a new exhibit celebrating the centennial of the JDC, the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee. You probably
know the JDC helped in the relief efforts after WWII, but the organization is
far older than that and it still exists, doing important work around the globe.
Anyway, a telegram displayed in the exhibit caught my wife’s eye. This message was sent from someone in Germany
in 1933 to the JDC in NY, and it said (I’m sorry we did not copy it word for
word) that the situation was not salvageable – instead of relief for those
inside Germany, all efforts should be focused on getting as many people out as
possible. My wife could not believe that
already in 1933 there was such certainty of impending doom. Her own father’s family did not leave Germany
until a few years after that. I told her
it’s no surprise. 20 or 30 years from
now G-d forbid people will look back at the articles in the news that we read almost
daily about the situation of Jewry in France and other European countries, the
articles we dismiss as alarmist, as right-wing extremism, the calls to get out
that people have begun to act on in small measure while others delay, thinking
there will always be time to run when things get really bad, and we will wonder
why more was not done sooner, why so many failed to act when the anti-Semitisim
was so clear, when the barely repressed violence was already evident. Of course I hope and pray that things don't come to that...
Maybe someone from CAIR can help me here, but I am just
wondering how many mosques have been firebombed by Jews in response to events in the
Middle East, or how many Moslems had to call the police to protect them from
riots? Just curious.
Let me end off with some Torah. The first set of halachos the Rambam covers
in his Sefer haAvodah is titled “Hilchos Beis haBechira.” The Rambam lists the mitzvos covered in that
section, first of which is “livnos beis hamikdash.” The first halacha starts off, “Mitzvas aseh la’asos
bayis l’Hashem…” I don’t know what to
make of it (if anything), but within just a few lines the Rambam introduces
three completely different terms for the same thing: 1) beis habechira, 2) beis
hamikdash, 3) bayis l’Hashem. Now, true
he uses the term “beis habechira” in Sefer haMitzvos, which is the groundwork
upon which Mishneh Torah is built, but if consistency is the goal, then why not
continue to use that term? Why use it
only in the header for the halachos and then change to something else? And while we are being nitpicky, what do you
make (if anything) of the switch in verbs from “livnos beis hamikdash” to “la’asos
bayis l’Hashem?”
The Rav thought that there are two separate mitzvos - one to build a mikdash, and one to build the beis habechira, with beis habechira meaning the bechira olamis and ain achareha heter. (See kovetz chiddushei torah and also shiurei harav sanhedrin 20b) That's why in hil. beis habechira, he refers to the bayis lahashem and he uses the pasuk of veasu li mikdash (which was said on the mishkan) - because there he's referring to the general mitzva of binyan hamikdash (which the mishkan also fulfilled.) But in hil. melachim, where he talks about the 3 mitzvos nitztavu bechnisasan laaretz, he uses the lashon of livnos "beis habechira" and the pasuk of leshichno sidreshu, because the building of "beis habechira" had to be done davka in EY, after amalek etc.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Genack added that that's why in the hagada we say "ilu hichnisanu leeretz yisrael velo bana es beis habechira" - because the beis habechira has to be davka in EY, even though there was a kiyum of binyan hamikdash by the mishkan already, but beis habechira had to be in EY.
I'm still not sure why the Rambam would put the mitzva of binyan beis habechira in hil. melachim and not in hil. beis habechira
So while the KS"M learns that the Rambam disagrees with the SM"G who says the mitzvah of building a beis hebchira applied only after David finished the conquest of EY, the Rav is saying that the Rambam doesn't disagree, it's that there are 2 dinim, one of binyan mikdash, one of binyan beis habechira.
DeleteAny idea on the difference between livnos vs la'asos?
This two dinim sevara may help with a different Rambam. The gemara learns that the building of mikdash was only done during the day based on a pasuk in Ezra, yet the Rambam paskens that it is not a zman gerama mitzvah. Maybe its only the mitzvah of building *beis hebechira* which is time delimited, but not the mitzvah of *asu li mikdash*. This would explain that diyuk halashon of the Rambam (1:12) that "hakol chayavim livnos... k'mikdash hamidbar." Why does he add those words at the end? Because it's the chiyuv of binyan mikdash, like in the midbar, which applies to women, but not the chiyuv of binyan beis habechira.
I was loving this chiluk, and the diyuk of kemikdash hamidbar - but the Rambam there in 1:12 has a drasha from a pasuk in bamidbar - "beyom hakim es hamishkan" that it only applies bayom, from the mishkan itself.
DeleteAs far as livnos vs. laasos, pashtus when he uses laasos, he's just echoing the lashon of the pasuk of veasu li mikdash, but I'm not sure what the difference is between livnos and laasos. I might suggest that the difference is that the mishkan and shiloh were not permanent structures (they had no tikra - rambam BHB 1:2), as Dovid Hamelech said aron hashem is besoch hayeria. Maybe for the mitzva of veasu li mikdash, you don't need a binyan (an ohel is enough) but the beis habcehira must be a binyan (with a tikra). (It happened that they built a binyan in Shiloh, but maybe it wasn't necessary.) Just a suggestion.