Shabbat Parashat Vayikra 5773
Vayikra | 5 Nissan 5773 | 3/16/2013
The korbanot of chatat fit into a relatively predictable category. If one mistakenly violates a sin whose punishment is karet, the consequence is a korban chatat. At the end of our parasha, there are several cases where a korban asham is called for, and the parameters are different and much less predictable. One of the cases is an interesting hybrid sin that deserves analysis.
May an American visiting Israel who keeps one day of Yom Tov fly on the day after Pesach in Israel (Yom Tov Sheini abroad) if he will land at his destination after Yom Tov there?
[The gemara tells of the aftermath of David’s mistake of not having the people give an atonement during their counting, which came from his not realizing the difference between free choice for the individual and for the masses. This resulted in a plague against the people. The pasuk brought here introduces the end of the plague, which resulted in the discovery of the place of the Beit Hamikdash.] “As the destruction was occurring, Hashem saw and decided to halt the bad (the plague)” (Divrei Hayamim I:21:15). What did He see? Rav said: He saw Yaakov Avinu, as the pasuk says: “Yaakov said when he saw them” (Bereishit 32:3). Shmuel said: He saw the ashes of Yitzchak, as the pasuk says: “Hashem will see for him a sheep” (Bereishit 22:8).
Neighbors jointly presented an expansion plan for their apartments to the Urban Planning Board and received permission for their building plans. The plaintiffs (=pl) received permission to build rooms totaling 60 square meters. The defendants (=def), who are their upstairs neighbors, asked for permission only to close off a 20 m. balcony and use the roof of pl’s extension for open balconies. Originally, pl and def planned to have their work done jointly, sharing the costs. However, def became short on money and delayed their plans, and pl built on their own and presented def with a bill of 85,000 shekels for their part in the costs. Def paid 19,000 shekels without receiving a waiver for further pay. Years later, just before the permission to build expired, def sold their apartment, and the buyers built immediately. Pl are now suing for the remaining 66,000 shekels. Def responds that their share of the building expenses should not be divided evenly with pl, because pl made more serious use of the construction. Furthermore, def didn’t use the extension at all, as only the buyers built on it. According to the law, pl should also pay def for using more joint area than def did. [This summary does not explore all elements of the ruling.]
Rabanit Itah bat Chana
Mr. Shmuel ben
Rosa Shoshana Rosenhak
amongst the sick
of Klal Yisrael
This edition of
Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l
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).