Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim| 5765
Mishpatim | | 02/01/2004
Last year, we brought the Sefat Emet’s ethical interpretation of the laws of the sho’el (borrower). This year we will follow suit, regarding the Torah’s section on the shomer chinam (unpaid watchman). The Torah writes:
Case: The defendant (=de)admitted to owing money to the plaintiff (=pl) due to loans and using checks he stole from pl. However, de claimed that pl owed him more money from other dealings than he owed pl. Beit din rejected de’s claim and obligated him to pay. The decision was rendered at the end of the Shemitta year, with the payment to be handed over to beit din within 30 days. This period ended after the end of Shemitta. Pl did make a pruzbol during the time of the court proceedings but not after the ruling was rendered. Did Shemitta remove the obligation?
It is difficult to claim that, despite a variety of sources to the contrary, the Rambam and Ramban do not accept the concept of an aron going out to battle (see Ramban on Sefer Hamitzvot, Shoresh 3). Rather, it seems that there were two historical periods in this regard. Before the mishkan had a set lodging place and the Levi’im carried its holy utensils, Bnei Yisrael were able to take the aron out to battle, as well.
Question: Does one who wants to adopt a child have to do so from the closest orphanage or from a Jewish orphanage before a non-Jewish one, as these preferences exist in regard to tzedaka? It seems todepend if adoption is a mitzva to help the child and, therefore, is governed by the laws of tzedaka or is something the adopting family does for its benefit. Which is it?
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).