Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life) | Lacetop Sheitels | Voting in Halacha - Halacha Headlines
08/01/24 - SHIUR 477

Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life) | Lacetop Sheitels | Voting in Halacha

Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life)
Should you teach or them, or should you shield them from exposure?

Lacetop Sheitels in Halacha – Erase the Lace or Embrace the Lace?
Is it a new question or an age old Machlokes?

Voting In Halacha
Can you vote for a candidate that’s personally immoral?
Can you vote for a party that supports immoral values?
Can you vote for a party that’s anti Eretz Yisroel?

Shiur Details

Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life)

Should you teach or them, or should you shield them from exposure?

Lacetop Sheitels in Halacha – Erase the Lace or Embrace the Lace?

is this a new question or just a revisit of an age old Machlokes?

Voting In Halacha

Can you vote for a candidate that’s personally immoral?
Can you vote for a party that supports immoral values?
Can you vote for a party that’s anti Eretz Yisroel?

Shiur Reference Material

30 Comments

Zev Landerer

Hi Reb Dovid,

The vort you mentioned is actually from Rav Schwab in Maayan Beis Hashoeva, not from Chasam Sofer (as far as I know).

Also interesting to note that even though Yair had no children (according to Rashi, but see Ramban), his name has been perpetuated in Klal Yisroel until today and he even has a sefer named after him, whereas Machir and Novach don’t seem to have ever been popular names…

Load More...
loading...

Shiur 365 Riddle

A:

א- כבר רמזת שיש מקום לומר לענין כל גר שנתגייר שאין חיוב טבילת כלים לפי שעיקר החיוב אינה אלא “כמעשה שהיה” ולכן החיוב נא’ רק דרך לקיחה
יש מהלך מחודש ע”פ חת”ס עה”ת שלא נא’ דין טבילת כלים אחרי כיבוש סיחון ועוג לפי שנתבטל השר שלהם ולכן נתבטל הטומאה ג”כ, ולכן ה”ה הטומאה שהיה ע”י מצרים נתבטל, וודאי גם טומאת ישראל קודם מתן תורה נתבטל, [וגם אולי מעולם לא היה להם טומאה וכל הנידון מחמת מה שהכלים היה ממצרים, ולפי צד זה יש מקום לומר כיון שכשנכנסו לרשות ישראל לא היה חיוב לא נתחייבו אח”כ]
יש מקום לומר שעדיין לא נתחדשה הלכה, והנה ודאי לא נתחדש הכא שהרי פרש”י נתעלמה הלכה ממשה וע”כ כל הפרשה כבר נאמרה (ופלא על שמצינו בכמה אחרנים ענין זה אצל גיעולי נכרים), אולם ודאי יש מקום לומר שעדיין לא נאמרה אחרי מתן תורה

ב- לכאו’ אין לומר חילוק שהכא ניתן “רשות” לרופא ולכן לא חשובה כעוסק במצוה שהרי עכשיו שניתנה רשות ה”ה בכלל הצלת נפשות [ןאולי לפי שיטת הרמב”ן י”ל]
ידוע מה שנקט החת”ס בתשו’ בפשיטות שרופא שהמית אינו חייב גלות, וכבר תמהו רבים שהוא נגד פסק השו”ע, ויש שנקטו מקור החת”ס היא קושיא כעי”ז ור”ל שס”ל שהתוספתא אינה להלכה, ומ”מ פלא במה שלא הביא פסק השו”ע
הנה מובא בפוסקים שו”ת תשב”ץ שהחיוב גלות היא רק על רופא אומן העוסק במלאכת היד לרפאות, ונראה שיש מקום לומר לפי שהוא אומן וכל עסקו הוא במדידה לכן דוקא על דרך זה חייב גלות

Submitted by Leslie Selevan
A:

Bezrat Hashem I hope you have a meaningful and redemptive Chodesh Av. Regarding the Dvar Torah last week on Matos – the source is Rav Shimon Schwab: e end of Parshas Matos, we read of the naming of some cities on the eastern side of the Jordan, which, at first glance, seems about as important as whether you call it Glenbrook or Northbrook. In fact, regarding a bunch of cities, the Torah writes, “ויקרא בשמת את שמות הערים אשר בנו, and they called them by names other than the ones that they had built. (Bamidbar 32:38)” In other words, as Bnai Yisrael conquered and built up these new cities, they renamed them, but their exact names are not significant enough for the Torah to inform us of each one specifically.

However, the parsha concludes by mentioning two specific cities:

ויאיר בן מנשה הלך וילכד את חותיהם ויקרא אתהן חות יאיר. ונבח הלך וילכד את קנת ואת בנתיה ויקרא לה נבח בשמו.

Yair the son of Menashe went and captured their villages, and called them Chavos-Yair. Novach went and captured Kenas and her suburbs, and called it Novach, after his name. (Bamidbar 32:41-42)

And although these two cities, Chavos-Yair and Novach, seem to just be two regular names, there is a profound message hidden within them.

Rashi notes that the word לה (referring to the city of Novach) in this context would should grammatically contain a מפיק, or a dot inside the ה, but here it’s missing. And he explains:

ויקרא לה נבח- לָה אֵינוֹ מַפִּיק הֵ”א, וְרָאִיתִי בִיסוֹדוֹ שֶׁל רַ’ מֹשֶׁה הַדַּרְשָׁן לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּם לָהּ שֵׁם זֶה לְפִיכָךְ הוּא רָפֶה, שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוּת מִדְרָשׁוֹ כְּמוֹ לֹא.

And He called it Novach- The word לה has no mappik in the ה (as the word לָהּ, “to it,” usually has). Now I have seen the following in the work of R. Moshe HaDarshan: Because this name did not remain permanently to it, therefore the letter ה is weak (without a mappik), the implication of his explanation being that it (the word לה) is the same as לא “not.” (Rashi Bamidbar 32:42)

Meaning, Yair conquered cities and named them Chavos Yair, or the villages of Yair. This name lasted, as is apparent from a description of Yair’s wealth many years later:

ויהי לו שלשים בנים רכבים על שלשים עירים ושלשים עירים להם להם יקראו חות יאיר עד היום הזה אשר בארץ הגלעד.

He had thirty sons, who rode on thirty burros and owned thirty boroughs in the region of Gilead, these are called Chavos-Yair. (Judges 10:4)

We learn two things from this passage: Yair was a very wealthy man, and the name of his conquered villages, Chavos-Yair, stuck. On the other hand, Rashi teaches, Novach conquered villages and named them Novach, but that name did not last. Those cities are not mentioned again later in Tanach.

The question is why this is so, and why any of this matters. What can we learn from the fact that the name Chavos-Yair stuck, and the name Novach didn’t? R. Shimon Schwab, in his Maayan Beis Hashoeva, explains that the answer can be found in the names themselves. Both Yair and Novach were very wealthy people. Both were successful in leading military missions to conquer their cities. And both named their new territories after themselves. But there was one very significant distinction. Yair names his area Chavos-Yair, the villages of Yair. He used his own name, memorializing that these villages are his. Novach, however, chose not to name his area Chavos-Novach, or the villages of Novach. Rather, he named them Novach, his very name. This, R. Schwab explains, indicates that Novach defined his very essence by his possessions. He didn’t view his assets as merely something that he owned, something that can come and go, a gift to be appreciated, but not taken for granted. Instead, he viewed his possessions as part of him, as his identity. When one understands that his wealth and resources are something he owns, but not a part of him, then it can last. But when Hashem saw that Novach named his city with his same name, indicating that he saw his land as a part of him, He made sure that it would not last, but be recorded merely as a lesson to learn from.

Load More...
loading...

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Rabbi Aharon Sorscher, Rabbi Moshe Aharon Kahane, Rabbi Yaakov Ephraim Forscheimer, Rabbi Yaakov Feitman
Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life) | Lacetop Sheitels | Voting in Halacha
Downloads :
Rabbi Aharon Sorscher, Rabbi Moshe Aharon Kahane, Rabbi Yaakov Ephraim Forscheimer, Rabbi Yaakov Feitman
Teaching our children about the dangers of camp (and life) | Lacetop Sheitels | Voting in Halacha
Downloads :
Contact