Searching For Hashem

Searching For Hashem By Rav Moshe Shternbuch The following was written by Rabbi Daniel Yaakov Travis based on a drasha given by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, Rosh Av Beis Din of the Eidah Hachareidis of Yerushalayim, on leil Shabbos Parshas Va’eschanon. ••••• JUST GETTING STARTED “My Master Hashem, You have started to show your servant (Moshe) Your greatness and Your mighty hand, and proven that there is no one in the Heavens or Earth as great as You “ (Devorim 3:24). Moshe Rabbeinu’s words are difficult to understand. Previously, he had spent forty days in the Heavens speaking directly to Hashem and receiving the Torah, and he had seen the miracles in and leaving Mitzrayim. After all that Moshe had witnessed, how can he only say now that he started to see Hashem? Moshe Rabbeinu had just been moser nefesh to recite over five hundred tefillos to Hashem to permit Him to enter Eretz Yisroel. Chazal tell us that Moshe Rabbeinu was certainly not interested in the physical benefits of being there, such as eating the delicious fruit which could not be matched in any other country. Rather, he wanted to fulfill the mitzvos of Eretz Yisroe, and achieve a greater level of closeness to his Creator. Moshe Rabbeinu had seen many of Hashem’s miracles. Yet, with all that he had seen, it was not enough. No matter how much

a person experiences of Hashem’s glory, he has not even witnessed an iota of His infinite Magnitude. After all of His tefillos, he achieved an even greater level of perception, and it was as if he was only starting to witness Hashem’s greatness. LOOKING AT THE STARS The Almighty has placed billions of stars in the universe, each one bigger than our planet. The Rambam writes in the second perek of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah that a person is meant to gaze into the cosmos and see the stars and all of His wonders. Immediately, he should tremble in amazement after witnessing such glory and splendor, and recognizing his own tininess. The main purpose of the stars is to express Hashem’s glory. Hashem set them in the sky

for us to perceive His greatness. At the time of the final din, we will all be questioned why we didn’t make use of such an opportunity. The Rambam’s directive to gaze into the heavens is not a suggestion. We are obligated to think about that which we see every day and take for granted. We should not squander such an opportunity to imbue our lives with fear and recognition of Hashem.

Bava Metziah 94: Wages for Wasted Work Archives of Ethics Series THE EXEMPT SHOMER SOCHOR A shomer sochor, who is paid to look after an object, is ordinarily obligated to reimburse the owner if the object is lost or stolen under his care. The poskim discuss two cases in which a shomer sochor would be exempt from this obligation. In the first case, Shimon agrees to watch Reuven’s object for pay, on the condition that he will not be held responsible if the object is stolen. When Reuven returns for his object, it is, in fact, missing. Shimon is exempt from reimbursing Reuven for the object. Must Reuven pay Shimon for watching the object, even though it is now missing? In the second case, Reuven entrusts an object to Shimon to be repaired. At the time that he gives Shimon the object, Reuven does some sort of work for Shimon. According to the Gemara (Bava Metziah 80), one repairing an object is considered a shomer sochor, and Shimon should be held responsible for geneivah vea’aveidah, but this is a case of “ba’alav imo;” the owner of the object was working for the shomer at the time of the shomer’s responsibility. Shimon indeed performs the necessary work, but when Reuven returns for the object, it has been stolen. Shimon is exempt from reimbursing Reuven in such a case as well. Must Reuven pay Shimon for fixing the Page 44

ADDING IS SUBTRACTING Even while searching to perceive Hashem’s Greatness in this world, one must be wary. The way to find holiness is to follow the Torah’s guidelines to the tee. Adding or subtracting from the mitzvos is forbidden,

For only this is called true life.

Choshen Mishpat Through the Lens of Daf Yomi

Delivered by Rav Yonason Dovid Hool

DIVINE REWARD Chazal tell us that although Moshe Rabbeinu had great merit, he did not request compensation for his actions in this world. He wanted to save all of his reward for the World to Come. Moshe was only interested in a gift from Hashem. The Yerushalmi explains that it is impossible to compensate a person for his mitzvos in this world. Olam Habah is an eternal spiritual existence. This world is transient and physical, with no permanence at all. The Alter of Novardok explained that this world is like an expensive restaurant. Pleasures can be enjoyed without limit, but they all must be paid for at the end. Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to save all of his reward for the next world and therefore asked that he should be a recipient of Hashem’s Divine favor.

object? After all, even though it was stolen, Shimon did perform the necessary work! A COMPARABLE CASE The two cases of the exempt shomer mentioned on our daf are comparable to a third case mentioned in an earlier Gemara (Bava Metziah 55). The Mishnah says that the laws of shomrim do not apply to certain types of objects, such as hekdesh, and one looking after such objects is not obligated in the normal responsibilities of shomrim. If a messenger is designated to bring machatzis hashekel coins to the Bais Hamikdosh and the coins are stolen, the messenger is not obligated to pay, even though he is a shomer sochor. If he cannot swear that the theft was unpreventable (ones), he does not receive his payment, because he cannot prove that he has fulfilled his duty to watch over the entrusted objects. Thus, we have here a third case in which a shomer sochor is exempt from reimbursing the owner after a theft. In this case, he forfeits his right to be paid. Can this conclusion be extended to the other two cases of exempt shomrim? DOING THE JOB RIGHT According to the Shach (305:2), the shomer who made a precondition would not be paid for watching the stolen object; after all, he didn’t do his job very well. However, in the ba’alov imo case, the Chut Hameshulash rules that the craftsman should be paid for his work. Since the owner was

even if the intention is to achieve a greater fulfillment of the Torah. In our day, Reform and Conservative Jews have changed the mode of Torah observance. They justify their actions with the above claim that in a modern world, it is impossible to keep all of the laws that the Torah lays down. The Torah makes it quite clear that such an argument is baseless, and that the best way to perworking for the shomer at the time of the shemirah, the worker is not obligated to pay in a case of theft, but he performed the craftsmanship required and so he is given his wages. The Ketzos Hachoshen explains that a case of ba’alav imo should be no different than the hekdesh case. In this case, however, he agrees with the Chut Hameshulash, because the shomer is an uman, a skilled worker. Even though such a worker is automatically considered a shomer sochor in terms of his responsibilities, he is actually paid for his work, not for watching the object. The messenger transporting hekdesh is paid for looking after it, which he failed to do; a watchmaker is paid to fix an object, which he did, and thus should be paid his wages. Nevertheless, the Ketzos objects to the conclusion of the Chut Hameshulash. Even though the skilled worker receives his wages for performing his work, he is only paid when he concludes the job. If the work he did is not productive, the owner does not have to pay him. If the worker was at fault for not watching the object properly, even if he is not obligated to pay because of ba’alav imo and even though he is generally paid for his work and not for watching the object, the owner does not have to pay. According to the Ketzos, an uman loses his wages because didn’t complete his job properly. AN IMPORTANT PRECONDITION The Machane Efrayim (Hilchos Shomrim 22) agrees with the conclusion of the Ketzos Hachoshen: the worker loses his wages, just like in the hekdesh case. In the case of the shomer sochor who made a precondition with the owner, however, the Machane Efrayim argues that he does get paid. In the cases of a shomer sochor with ba’alav imo or if he is

YATED NE’EMAN

petuate the Torah is to follow it in its entirety. In a similar vein, we are forbidden to count Klal Yisroel. Numbering gives importance to quantity, while the Jewish people’s distinction is qualitative and cannot be perceived numerically. Only by keeping the Torah in its complete form can we achieve this greatness. After relating the prohibition to add or subtract from the commandments, the Torah immediately mentions not to follow Baal Pe’or. The juxtaposition implies a connection between these two concepts. How does adding to the Torah relate to worshiping idols? Generally, an idol was served by bowing down, kissing, or sacrificing to it. Baal Pe’or was unlike all other idols in that it was worshipped by disgracing it in the most vile way. At first glance, one might think that this form of service is actually praiseworthy, for it shames the idol. However, since this is the form of worship, the Torah prohibits this, and acting in such a manner arouses Divine wrath as by any other type of idol worship. The message of the Torah is clear. Any philosophies that propose changing the Torah are prohibited, even if they seem logically correct. Although we must love all Jews, all aspects of Reform and Conservative philosophies must be avoided. In doing so, we will merit to see the fulfillment of the verse, “And you shall cling to Hashem your G-d and you will be alive,” for only this is called true life. ••••• Rabbi Travis is a rosh kollel of Kollel Toras Chaim in Yerushalayim, and is the author of Shaylos U’Teshuvos Toras Chaim and “Praying With Joy - A Daily Tefilla Companion,” a practical daily guide to improving one’s prayers, available from Feldheim Publishers. For more information about his work, contact [email protected]. looking after hekdesh, the shomer is paid to look after the object. But a shomer sochor who wants to be exempt for a different reason and who stipulates that he will only watch the object on condition that has no responsibility in essence declares that he is a shomer sochor who wants to be treated like a shomer chinom, who is only responsible for negligence. He does not want to exert the effort usually required of a shomer sochor. In such a case, he is paid even if he does not do extra shemirah. Even though he failed to protect the object from being stolen, he is paid for the easier exertion involved in looking after it as a shomer chinom and for rental of the space in which he kept it. Returning to our original two cases, the Shach argues that the shomer sochor who made a precondition would not receive his wages because he didn’t look after the object, while the Machane Efrayim argues that he is paid because he made it clear from the outset that he did not plan on guarding the object. In the case of ba’alav imo, a shomer sochor would not get paid. If his responsibility is due to the fact that he is a craftsman, the Chut Hameshulash argues that the shomer should be paid, as he performed the work that he was paid to do. The Ketzos concludes that he is not paid because ultimately he did not return the repaired goods to its owner. ••••• Apart from the Archives of Ethic series, the Bais HaVaad also offers numerous educational and practical halachic services, including a Choshen Mishpat consultation line. For more information about the Archives of Ethics shiurim, the Bais HaVaad and additional services, contact the office at 888.ITL.VAAD or email [email protected]. 10 Av 5769 • July 31 2009