Shabbat Parashat Shelach| 5766
Shelach | | 01/01/2005
One’s impression from the story of the spies is that they said that Eretz Yisrael was desirable but that it was unfeasible to conquer it. Yet when Tehillim describes Bnei Yisrael’s sin, it says: “They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word” (106:24). In truth, the Torah later in our parasha describes Bnei Yisrael as despising the Land (Bamidar 14:31). What was the basis of the spies’ and the nation’s despising of the Land?
We start with the paragraph dealing with a dayan’s decision to disqualify himself from sitting in a case of a family member. Our procedures read: “The decision of a dayan to disqualify himself or resign from a case requires the approval of one of the Heads of the Court. Such a decision by a dayan, when involving disqualification based on the laws of not judging relatives, does not require such approval.”
The Torah (Vayikra 5:1) says that one is obligated to testify on another’s behalf and that his failure to do so, coupled with an oath, obligates him in a korban. The gemara (Bava Kamma 66a) says that one who withheld testimony that would have helped his friend has a moral obligation to pay the money that his silence cost his friend. Are these halachot limitedto testimony in beit din?
This edition of
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).