May these words of Torah serve as a merit le’iluy nishmat Menachem Mendel Ben Harav Yoel David Balk a”h.

This week we learned Kiddushin 76-Bava Kamma 2. Here are some highlights.

Kiddushin 77

If you see a lost garment and a lost ring, which should you return first?

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein raised the following question: Reuven found two lost objects: a garment and a ring. They were equal in value. He could only return one of them. Which should he return?

In Kiddushin 77, the Gemara asks what is the chalalah of which the Torah speaks? The Gemara explains that chalalah, which is explicit in the verse and we did not need the lessons of our Sages to discover, is a woman born of a prohibited kohen relationship, such as a widow who married a kohen gadol or a divorcee who married a kohen. The language of this discussion is surprising. When our Sages interpret a Torah text they are deriving Biblical law; what difference is there between law that was explicit and did not need the Sages to derive it with their methodologies, and laws that were derived by the Sages?

Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Ha’otzar Ma’areches 1-4 kelal 18, chelek alef amud 74) suggested that laws that are explicit in the literal meaning of the verse are more weighty than laws that were derived from the interpretation of the Sages.

Therefore, he suggested the following novel law. If a person is sick and must eat forbidden food, we first give him food that is less forbidden. Only if the lightly prohibited food did not succeed to rescue the ill individual would the law allow him to eat food that is more severely prohibited. Therefore, if a kohen was placed under threat by gentiles who demanded that he violate the law banning marriage with a chalalah, he should first marry the chalalah who is defined by the Sages as a chalalah, before marrying the daughter of an illicit kohen relationship, for such a woman is more prohibited, since her prohibited status is explicit in the verse.

Ha’amek Davar also writes that a Torah law explicit in the plain meaning of a verse is stricter than a Torah law derived from a drasha on the verse.

In light of this, perhaps Reuven should choose to return the lost garment. The obligation to return a lost garment is mentioned explicitly in the Torah. It is written, “vechein ta’aseh lesimlato—And so you shall do for his garment.” Since there is an explicit verse calling for the return of a lost garment, the return of a lost garment is more important than the return of another object, and Reuven should return the garment and not the ring.

However, Rabbi Zilberstein rejected this idea. The Torah states in regard to returning a lost object, “vechein ta’aseh lechol aveidat achicha asher tovad mimenu umatzata—And so shall you do for all lost objects of your friend that might be lost from him and you will find.” Since the Torah mentioned that all objects are to be returned, this verse is explicitly including rings and any other object; therefore, there should be no need to give precedence to a lost garment more than to a lost ring. However, in regard to saving a friend from loss to his property, there we can say that returning a lost, movable object should take precedence before saving a piece of property. The Gemara teaches the law to return a lost piece of property and the obligation for all to try and prevent damage to a piece of property with the words “Amar Rava lechol aveidat achicha lerabot aveidat karka—Rava taught ‘for all the lost objects of your brother,’ is to include losses to property.” (Bava Metzia 31a) Since the Gemara says that the implication of the verse was to include real estate, it sounds like it was not the literal meaning of the verse. The literal and plain meaning of the verses only obligated the return of a movable object. Land was included in the verses from Rabbinic exegesis. Therefore, if one saw a river about to damage his friend’s field and he had the ability to quickly run and save the field by diverting the water, yet at the same time he saw a lost ring or garment, and if he would save the field he would not succeed in returning the garment to his friend, he should first return the garment or ring, for as movables their return is explicitly called for. (Chashukei Chemed)

Kiddushin 78

The Importance of Donating Lights to the Shul

The following question was presented to Rav Zilberstein:

“In our shul in Bnei Brak each Shabbat day, right after the recital of the Yekum Purkan prayers, there is an interruption. The gabai of the shul ascends to the pulpit and offers to sell the privilege of donating the lighting for the shul for the week. This honor is sold for 150 shekel per day. Sometimes a congregant might buy all seven days and give the shul a check for 1,050 shekel. On other Shabbatot, each day gets purchased by a different congregant. With the funds the shul receives it pays for the electricity and heating costs. The learning and prayer that will happen because of the lighting becomes a merit for the donor. After the mitzvah is sold, the prayers resume. The chazan then intones the beautiful prayer composed for righteous givers, “He who blessed our fathers should bless all those who donate ner lama’or—candles to be lit… May the Almighty pay their reward, remove from them all illnesses, heal their entire bodies, forgive all their sins, and send blessings and success to all that they do, together with all of Israel their brethren,” and all answer with a resounding “Amen!”

Last Shabbos, Reuven purchased the sponsorship of Wednesday’s costs. Wednesday was his father’s yahrtzeit. He wanted the merit of prayer and learning to serve as an elevating power for his father’s soul. Unfortunately, on Wednesday, the power went down throughout the city. There were no lights in any shul, including ours, on Wednesday. It is now Friday. We asked Reuven for the money he pledged. Reuven claims that since he purchased Wednesday’s mitzvah of lights and on Wednesday there was no illumination, he does not need to pay anything. He did not want to sponsor any of the other days of the week, on which there were lights. Wednesday was his father’s yahrtzeit and he only sponsored the lights for that day to try and add merit for his father on his day of passing. Is Reuven correct? Is he exempt from paying since he did not receive that which he ordered?”

Rav Zilberstein pointed out that it is a great merit to donate the lights that will illuminate a shul.

Kiddushin 78 mentioned the verse in Shmuel that stressed that the lamp of Hashem was still burning in the holy chamber of the Mishkan when Shmuel received his first prophecy from Hashem, while he lay in a bed outside of the sacred space. Prophecy was linked with the flames of the menorah illuminating the holy place.

Tosafot suggests that candles for a shul are the equivalent of offering a sacrifice on the holy altar which stood in the Temple. The Gemara in Bava Batra (8) teaches that we are not to accept charity from gentiles. However, the law states that if a gentile wishes to donate candles that will be lit and illuminate a shul, we are to accept his donation of lights for shul. Tosafot explains the reason for the difference. Charity should be performed by Jews.

(Chashukei Chemed)

By Rabbi Zev Reichman