s; vacug s; fh ,mt fh Volume 27 No. 46 KI TETZE Daf Hashavua 29 August 2015 • 14 Elul 5775 ends in London at 8.43 pm Artscroll p.1046 • Hertz p.840 • Soncino p.1098

Solutions in Dealing with Doping in Sport the Sidrah: by Yoni Birnbaum, Hadley Wood Jewish Community

The repercussions of the 2012 revelations that Torah prohibits not only the usage of such one-time cycling hero Lance Armstrong was in implements, but even proscribes keeping them fact a prolific cheat are still being felt. in one’s house (Devarim 25:14). Honesty is Many will also recall Canadian sprinter Ben defined not merely by doing the right thing, but Johnson’s dramatic fall from grace following by being free of any possible suspicion allegations of doping, a mere two days after whatsoever. This is a clear message for those winning the 100m final at the 1988 Seoul who try to differentiate between taking Olympics. These incidents are only the performance enhancing drugs and using depressing tip of the iceberg. questionable dietary supplements.

On the one hand, the fact that Upon closer examination, most more and more cases of doping in striking of all is the actual sport are coming to light can be positioning of these laws in seen as positive. Perhaps one the Torah. They appear to day it will truly be ‘cleaned up’. be deliberately interspersed Yet on the other hand, cases amongst other ‘religious’ like this illustrate the laws, such as remembering frightening ability of some the actions of Amalek people to occupy a parallel and the laws of levirate universe for years. One is marriage. their public persona, as elite The message conveyed by this sports people and heroes to millions placement is clear. ‘Religious’ and of fans worldwide. Yet the other social/moral obligations occupy the harbours a deep, dark secret; the same sphere. Behaving in an honest and knowledge that the whole thing is actually a ethical way is as much a religious obligation huge con. What is the Jewish perspective on as prayer or any other. It is this same living with such basic contradictions? perspective which makes the living of a ‘double life’ in a sports context so unacceptable from This week’s sidrah contains more mitzvot than a Jewish perspective. any other. Prominent amongst them are various laws which regulate business ethics and The real litmus test of an ethical and moral delineate fair interpersonal conduct. For person is someone who adheres to the correct instance, there are laws against owning values even, and perhaps especially, when dishonest weights and measures. Pointedly, the no-one else is looking. Within the Spirit of the Law by David Frei Director of External and Legal Services for the United Synagogue

Towards the beginning of this week’s sidrah, the relationship may be a Rebel- Torah outlines the laws of the ‘Rebellious Son’ lious Son. ben sorrer u’moreh ( ), who can receive capital Why is this so? All the man punishment for his misdemeanours. There is a did was to follow the Torah’s view expressed in the that throughout instructions about the history, there was never a case of such a person Beautiful Captive. Why does being put to death (Sanhedrin 71a). Why then this result in an unhappy marriage does the Torah bother to define the crime of a and a Rebellious Son? Rebellious Son and the process of his punishment, if in fact no such case ever Rabbi Elyashiv answered that there is a major occurred? distinction between acting strictly within the letter of the law and acting within the spirit of The Talmud explains that the passage was the law. included to give us a reward for learning and expounding its laws. The great Rabbi Yosef He quotes an extraordinary Rabbinic dictum that Shalom Elyashiv (d. 2012) asked a question on Jerusalem was destroyed because the Rabbinic this explanation. Is there really Courts judged cases according insufficient material in the vast to Torah Law (Talmud Bava Torah literature, such that we Metzia 30b). The message of require a passage about a this dictum is disapproval of an theoretical subject merely for the insistence on adhering to the sake of academic Torah study? strict letter of Torah law in commercial disputes when a compromise He answered that there is a fundamental position within the spirit of Torah law could principle which emerges from this passage. As have been reached between the parties instead. Rashi (d.1105) explains, the first three passages A rich man, for example, even if entitled by in this week’s sidrah (Devarim 21:10-23) Torah law to claim heavily against a poor man, are causally connected: might, instead accept a compromise . The sidrah opens with the case of the ‘Beautiful One can think of many activities which are not (eshet yafat to’ar Captive’ ), to whom a Jewish strictly outside the parameters of halacha but soldier is attracted in the heat of battle. The which are nevertheless beyond the spirit of the Torah allows the soldier to take her as a wife, law. This, says Rabbi Elyashiv, is the message subject to certain conditions. conveyed by the passage of the Rebellious Son. The next passage concerns a man with two wives It may well be that the Jewish soldier was legally (which is intrinsically permitted by Jewish law), allowed to follow his desires and marry the one of whom he loves and the other of whom he Beautiful Captive but this law was only has grown to dislike. The Torah stresses the need promulgated to deal with a libidinous man, to honour the firstborn son’s entitlement to a who, if not permitted to take the captive, would double portion in the father’s estate, even if the do so anyway (Talmud Kiddushin 21b-22a). firstborn is the son of the wife whom he dislikes. The fact that it was permitted by the Torah does The third passage is that of the Rebellious Son. not mean that it was either desirable, nor that Rashi explains the juxtaposition. If a man serious consequences would not ensue. One marries a Beautiful Captive, he may eventually has to act not only within the letter of the law grow to dislike her and the result of their but also within its spirit. Between Milk and Meat: Part II Rabbi Yehuda Spitz, KLBD

In part I, we mentioned that some groups of declares that one may certainly not eat milk people take the opinion of the Zohar into and meat as part of the same meal. Others account and are particular to wait a half- add that those groups who generally try to hour after eating dairy foods before meat, wait half an hour in line with the Zohar’s even though this is not required according teaching would certainly need to make to the letter of the law. two separate meals, as the Zohar clearly The question of whether Birkat Hamazon demands a higher degree of separation. (Grace After Meals) is also required after a Nevertheless, many defend the Magen dairy meal is addressed by the Magen Avraham’s position. Additionally, if it really Avraham (Rabbi Avraham Gombiner, d. was a printing mistake, the Magen 1682) in the ‘Laws of Shavuot’. Since, as Avraham's son-in-law, Rabbi Moshe mentioned in a previous article, it is Yekutiel Kaufman Cohen, would customary on the holiday of have corrected it in his Shavuot to eat dairy products comprehensive guide to in addition to the traditional Jewish Law titled Chukei festive meat meal, a question Chaim. Yet instead he arises. May one have dairy ruled exactly as his and then meat as part of the father-in-law did, with same meal, by merely doing no requirement of Birkat the basic rinsing, washing and Hamazon between dairy and palate cleansing mandated by the meat. This is also the final ruling of both ? Or must one eat the milk the Aruch Hashulchan (Rabbi Yechiel dishes and then the meat dishes as part of Michel Epstein d. 1908) and the Mishnah two separate meals? Berurah (Rabbi d. 1933) The Magen Avraham rules that unless one – one is not required to make two ate hard cheese, which may (according to separate meals out of the different dishes.. some opinions) require a longer wait due to In the final analysis, it appears that all how it is digested, one need not have the one needs to do after partaking of a dairy dishes and the ensuing meat dishes as dairy item is the rinsing, washing and part of two separate meals. Therefore Birkat palate-cleansing prescribed in the Shul- Hamazon is not required, just the three chan Aruch. One is not required to wait step process described above. Many Rab- an extra hour, nor half-hour, nor say binic authorities follow this ruling. Birkat Hamazon before eating meat. However, other sources strongly disagree Nevertheless, many have the custom to do and require Birkat Hamazon in such a some or all of these things, to go “above situation. Rabbi Chaim Tirer (d. 1817) even and beyond” the letter of the law to writes that the Magen Avraham's opinion properly ensure that their meat and milk must have been a printing mistake and stay distinctly separate. Journeys with The Book of Shmuel (Samuel I) Chapter 31 the Prophets: by Rabbi Dr Moshe Freedman, New West End United Synagogue Part 43

Summary: The Philistines routed Israel in Kimche (d. 1235) notes that Shaul knew battle. Shaul killed himself to avoid being through Shmuel’s prophecy that he was going captured alive. Upon hearing this news, the to die anyway. It was better to die by his own Jewish army fled and the Philistines plundered hand than be mocked and tortured to death by their cities. They removed Shaul’s head and the Philistines. took his armaments and stored it in their After Shaul’s death, together with his sons temple. and armour-bearer, the Philistines took A Deeper Look: Shaul led the Jewish people Shaul’s body, decapitated it and placed his into battle, knowing that it would be his last. remains “on the wall of Beth-shan” (Shmuel I The Philistines began to rout Shaul’s men, 31:10). They took his head targeting the king with archers. Shaul knew and placed it in the temple he was going to die in battle. Why then of Dagon, a Philistine idol. was he afraid of the archers? Rabbi Meir Leibush Wisser (d. 1879) explains that this was to exact Rabbi Don Yitzchak Arbravanel (d. revenge for the damage done to Dagon 1508) explains that Shaul was not when the Ark had been captured and taken afraid of dying, but of there. being injured and captured. If the The inhabitants of Yavesh-Gilaad heard that Philistines took him Shaul’s body had been taken. They launched a alive they might daring attack to reclaim Shaul’s remains and parade him, thus desecrating G-d’s Name. afford him and his sons a proper burial. This is why Shaul ordered his armour-bearer While Shaul had made many mistakes, he was to kill him. Yet the amour-bearer refused, a righteous man and his loss was a great fearing that even under such circumstances, tragedy for the Jewish people. The baton of it would be a great transgression to kill the kingship now passed to King David. Shaul’s anointed king of Israel. So Shaul took the era had ended and David’s had begun, thus sword and fell upon it, killing himself completing the First Book of Samuel. before the Philistines could take him. We would like to thank Rabbi Freedman for Given the Torah’s prohibition of suicide the Journeys with the Prophets series so far. (Bereishit 9:5) how could somebody of We look forward to resuming the series in Shmuel’s stature kill himself? Rabbi David the future with the second Book of Shmuel.

United Synagogue Daf Hashavua Produced by the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, together with US Living & Learning Editor: Rabbi Chaim Gross Editor in Chief: Rabbi Baruch Davis Available also via email US website www.theus.org.uk ©United Synagogue To sponsor Daf Hashavua please contact Richard Marcus on 020 8343 5685, or [email protected] If you have any comments or questions regarding Daf Hashavua please email [email protected]