Reminder: The Creator of the World Hates Idols

Parshat Re’eh: Of false prophets and idolaters

06 August 2021

28 Menachem Av 5781
Erev Shabbat Kodesh
Parashat Re’eh – Mevorchim

The Midrash Says on Parshat Re’eh:

…Moshe explained to the Jews: “Eretz Canaan is full of objects pertaining to idol worship. You cannot build a Land of holiness, with a Beit Hamikdash in its midst, while surrounded by the artifacts of idolatry.”
“Eliminate everything associated with idolatry – such as altars, stones, or trees – by whatever method is most effective. Demolish them, burn them, or cast them into the sea. Leave no trace of idolatry! If a place was named after idols, change its name.”
While it is a mitzvah to eliminate idols in any country (where Jews have the legal power to do so), in Eretz Yisrael the obligation goes further: The Jews are required not only to destroy all known idols, but must search for and demolish all the hidden ones as well.
The Torah repeatedly emphasizes that idolatry is the severest of sins. There could be no greater audacity than using one’s intellect, which is capable of inferring the presence of the Creator, to deny G-d’s uniqueness and attribute the vast intelligence that obviously activates all of creation to powers other than Him [even another human being.]
…The Torah declares that besides the inherent evil of worshiping idols, G-d hates the wicked rites of the idolaters. A Jew must therefore distance himself from all idolatrous practices.
…Moshe warned the Jews, “If any ‘prophet’ – whether Jewish or otherwise – ever arises in your midst and claims that a deity other than Hashem gave him a prophetic message, or even claims that Hashem Himself ordered the permanent abrogation of any mitzva of the Torah, know that he is an imposter. …Do not attribute any truth to his words, even if he performs wonders in heaven or on earth. [Even if he says he is here to “stand with Israel.”] …G-d is testing your loyalty to Him. 
…The Torah enacts very strict laws against a maisis, a (Jewish) “instigator” or “missionary” who attempts to persuade our people to accept strange gods.
He is not included in the law of “loving a fellow Jew.” Rather, it is a mitzva to hate him, in accordance with “Hashem, do I not hate those who hate You?” (Tehillim 39.21) He may also not be judged favorably, not treated mercifully, and in his case, Beit Din is exempt from its usual obligation to find exonerating factors for someone condemned to death.
…Rambam comments, “By not favoring a rasha and not covering up for him, we bring peace upon the Jewish people.”
Even if you want to say that xianity is allowed to the gentiles – it is NOT ALLOWED to gentiles in Eretz Yisrael!! And even if you believe that they have “pure” motives, we are forbidden to allow them to perform xian worship on holy soil. How much more so to invite them to do so and to participate in it or even observe it!
In Sefer HaMitzvot it is written, “It is a negative commandment 213 not to turn astray after idol-worship, neither in thought nor in word, nor even by watching.”
Sefer HaChinuch Negative Commandment 426 – “show no mercy to idol-worshippers (we should have no kind feelings for those who worship idols, and nothing about them should be good or pleasing in our eyes; in other words, we should remove far from our mind, and it should not [ever] arise in our speech, that there could be anything of value in one who worships in idolatry, and he should find no grace or favor in our eyes)
I’ve said this before, but it’s worth saying again and again and again if I can get this idea across. The extent to which this sounds harsh or extreme to you is the extent to which you have assimilated Western values which stand in contradiction to Torah law.
Hashem says His thoughts are above our thoughts. It’s up to us to align ourselves with the Torah and not to try to change it to fit “the times.” We’ve become too complacent about this matter and too accepting of xianity even to the point of denying that is even idolatry.
~ Shabbat Shalom – Chodesh Tov ~

Drinking During Pesukei Dezimra?!

Drinking During Davening

I have seen myself and heard from others that over the past few years, there has been significant growth in the number of people who drink coffee or tea during the morning prayers. They recite a blessing on the drink before the prayers and continue sipping occasionally during the initial sections (including Pesukei De-Zimra) and after their silent Amidah. This strikes me as irreverent but is it forbidden?

The Gemara (Berakhos 10b) says that it is forbidden to eat or drink before praying. However, you are allowed to drink water (Shulchan ArukhOrach Chaim 89:1). One sage learns it from the verse, “Do not eat from (literally: on) the blood” (Lev. 19:26) — do not eat until you pray for your blood. Another learns it from the verse, “And you have cast Me behind your back (or: your pride)” (1 Kings 14:9) — do not act arrogantly by satisfying your pleasures before praying.

Over time, coffee and tea became permitted, because they are necessary in order to able to pray. At first, they were permitted without sugar but eventually with sugar (Arukh Ha-Shulchan ad loc., 22). Someone who is sick or weak can eat or drink as necessary to be able to pray. Apparently, people today are very weak because many people take great liberties in this area, probably too many. Be that as it may, it is permissible to drink coffee or tea before prayers. What about during the prayers?

After saying the Barukh She-Amar blessing, you are not allowed to interrupt your prayers. From Barukh She-Amar through Yishtabakh is Pesukei De-Zimra, afterwards comes Shema and its blessing which you may not interrupt, and then immediately comes the silent Amidah. If you are not feeling weak or sick, are you allowed to drink during Pesukei De-Zimra or in between the blessings on Shema?

Rav Simcha Rabinowitz (cont., Israel; Piskei Teshuvos, 51:9) quotes Rav a Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Ephraim 6:29) who permits someone who feels weak or sick to say a blessing and drink during Pesukei De-Zimra. But if you don’t absolutely need to drink, then you may not. He adds (n. 86) that even without the issue of the blessing, eating or drinking constitutes and interruption to Pesukei De-Zimra which is otherwise forbidden. However, he does not offer proof that drinking constitutes and interruption.

In a recent article, Rav Matzli’ach Chai Mazuz (cont., Israel; “Whether it is Permissible to Drink Tea During Pesukei De-Zimra” in Ha-Mashbir, no. 9) argues that drinking tea constitutes a forbidden interruption. Rav Mazuz cites as proof the rule regarding Havdalah on Pesach night. If the first night of Pesach falls on Saturday, we must recite Havdalah ending Shabbos during Kiddush at the Pesach Seder. If you started the Seder in the regular way and forgot to say Havdalah, and you already started the Maggid section of discussing the Exodus story, then you wait until you are finished with Maggid and then say Havdalah (Shulchan ArukhOrach Chaim 473:1).

Ramban (Milchamos HashemPesachim 24a) disagrees with Rav Zerachiah Ha-Levi, who understands the Gemara as permitting drinking extra cups of wine during Maggid. Ramban disagrees because that constitutes an interruption. Once you begin Maggid, you may not interrupt the mitzvah by drinking. Based on this, Rav Mazuz argues that drinking constitutes an interruption and therefore you may not drink during Pesukei De-Zimra, and even more so during the blessings of Shema.

Rav Mazuz quotes Rav Yosef Bar Shalom (21st cen., Israel; Responsa Va-Yitzbor Yosef 2:17) who forbids drinking during Pesukei De-Zimra because it is distracting and also because it displays arrogance, which is why eating and drinking are forbidden before prayer. However, everyone agrees that if you feel weak or sick, then you may drink during Pesukei De-Zimra.

From Torah Musings, here.

חשוב שוב: מה מנסים לסמן לך משמים? – שירו של אברהם פרידמן

הכל מלמעלה | בני פרידמן | Hakol Milemala | Benny Friedman

Feb 19, 2020

מילים ולחן: איצי ברי
עיבוד והפקה מוזיקלית: אלי קליין & איצי ברי

להזמנת מופעים- יונתן יחיאל 0525000210
j5000210@gmail.com

אינסטגרם: https://www.instagram.com/bennysmusic/ פייסבוק: https://www.facebook.com/bennysmusic/ ספוטיפיי: https: / /open.spotify.com/artist/4aTDB7CQyMNOLQsCpAS9EW?si=oFTZVAc5TNKJmV6jti7ZrA אפל מיוזיק: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/ben…
Music in this video
Learn more
Listen ad-free with YouTube Premium
Song
Hakol Milemala
Artist
Benny Friedman
Licensed to YouTube by
Interstreet Recordings, and 3 Music Rights Societies

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

Pruzbul Is Not Legal Fiction!

Hillel Hazaken’s establishment of prozbul

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2012

was not the nullification of a mitzvah deOraysachas veshalom. Just the opposite! It was a kiyum of a mitzvah!


So, I was learning through maseches Shviis in preparation for the upcoming chag of ShviisI must admit, not precisely what I expected. ;)Anyway, in the 10th perek, the following Mishna:

From the wonderful website, emishnah.com:

(3) [A loan secured by] a prosbul [the next Mishnah explains the term] is not cancelled [by shemittah. This was one of the things instituted by Hillel HaZakan; for when he saw that people were refraining from lending to one another, and were transgressing that which is written in the Torah, “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unfaithful thought, saying, The seventh year, the year of the release has approached and you will be miserly with your needy brother and you will not give him; (Deuteronomy 15:9).”] Hillel then instituted the prosbul. [It should be noted that, at the time of Hillel, since the laws regarding the return of properties during Yoveil were no longer in force, the laws regarding the cancellation of loans of shemittah were also not in effect, as according to this opinion (see Gittin 36b), one was dependent on the other. However, the Rabbis reinstituted the laws of shemittah, so Hillel was not circumventing Biblical law].

And, as those [bracketed] notes make clear, it is an established and interesting question just how Hillel could have done this, cancelling a mitzvah in the Torah. Is this proof that the Torah is modifiable by the Rabbis?

The answer above is that Hillel was only cancelling something which was of Rabbinic, rather than Biblical status.

I would answer that, in fact, Hillel was making a derasha. The pasuk was {Devarim 15}:

ט  הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן-יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם-לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל לֵאמֹר, קָרְבָה שְׁנַת-הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה, וְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן, וְלֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ; וְקָרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל-ה, וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא.9 Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart, saying: ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand’; and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother, and thou give him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin in thee.
י  נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ, וְלֹא-יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ:  כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, יְבָרֶכְךָ ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-מַעֲשֶׂךָ, וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ.10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the LORD thy God will bless thee in all thy work, and in all that thou puttest thy hand unto.
יא  כִּי לֹא-יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן, מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ; עַל-כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, לֵאמֹר, פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת-יָדְךָ לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ, בְּאַרְצֶךָ.  {ס}11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying: ‘Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto thy poor and needy brother, in thy land.’ {S}

Hillel interpreted pasuk 9 to be a positive commandment, rather than a negative commandment. הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, that is, take positive steps to guard against something. Specifically, פֶּן-יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם-לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל לֵאמֹר. This is not a guard against action. It is a guard against a particular thought and intention. While the Torah does not outlaw thought but just action, the Torah can positively command one to take action to prevent a thought. Finally, this positive command was one fulfilled by Chazal in general and Hillel in particular. And the action was establishing the mechanisms of prozbol.

This was a positive mitzvah which did not always hold true. It depended on the metzius. For years, people would indeed still regularly lend. But, when Hillel saw that this devar belial was prevalent, then this other positive mitzvah kicked in.

And so, the law to cancel loans at shemitta is Biblical. And the law to prevent the cancellation of loans (in a particular circumstance) is Biblical, and they complement one another.

Further, how was this positive mitzvah accomplished? There may well be mechanics by which loans are already exempt from cancellation at shemitta. Thus, the pasuk stated:

ג  אֶת-הַנָּכְרִי, תִּגֹּשׂ; וַאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶת-אָחִיךָ, תַּשְׁמֵט יָדֶךָ.3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it; but whatsoever of thine is with thy brother thy hand shall release.

and the derasha is specifically your brother’s hand, and not that which is already in your hand (that is, if you had collateral in hand) or that which is in bet din‘s hand (by handing his shtar to the bet din). Or, it might be via hefker bet din hefker, whereby the loans are indeed cancelled but then immediately restored to validity. If so, this is not nullification but employment of a clever loophole. And add to this loophole, the above, that this was a commanded loophole.

Related in approach, perhaps, is the Netziv:

So how could Hillel come up with this circumvention?
The answer, in fact, is in the aforementioned text. According to the Netziv, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, in his classic commentary Ha’amaik Davar, we must focus on verse 15:4. Directly after telling us about the law of remission, the Torah says, “Nevertheless, there shall be no needy among you.” Can this mean that there will be no needy people? Clearly, history teaches otherwise. Further, a few verses later, the Torah itself states, “For there will never cease to be needy within the land.” (15:11). What, then, can the statement “Nevertheless, there shall be no needy among you” mean?
Says the Netziv, “The Torah itself is stating that this law [of debt remission] should not be the cause of poverty. If commercial lenders will not do business, as their capital will not be returned, the credit markets will disappear and small business owners, other needy borrowers, and some lenders will in fact fall into poverty. The Torah, then, is explicitly saying to keep the law of remission insofar as it prevents poverty, but not if it causes it.”
Hillel, far from circumventing the Torah, was following it precisely.