(For the riddles, please see back page)
1)
The Zohar HaKadosh (Vol. 1 165b) states that Yaakov fled Lavan’s house just after Rochel became pregnant with Binyomin. Similarly, the Tur (Tur HeAruch 31:35) explains that when Rochel told Lavan (31:35) that she could not stand up: כי דרך נשים לי - because the way of women is upon me, she was alluding to the fact that she was pregnant with Binyomin. Rashi (33:7) writes that when Yaakov presented his family to Eisav, all his sons went ahead of their mothers except for Yosef, who stood in front of Rochel to protect her from Eisav’s gaze. Chazal say that the Beis HaMikdash was built in Binyomin’s portion of Eretz Yisroel because he was the only one of Yaakov’s sons who did not bow down to Eisav since he was not yet born at the time of this episode. The Netziv (Harchev Davar 33:7) posits that if Rochel bowed to Eisav during this encounter while she was pregnant, it would be considered as though Binyomin bowed to him as well, so Hashem arranged to have Yosef stand between them. However, he notes that this is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Binyomin was born in Eretz Yisrael, yet the Gemara says that after Yaakov left Eisav, he spent 18 months in Succos and 6 months in Beis El before his arrival in Eretz Yisrael, which is longer than the duration of a human pregnancy. Although the Netziv concludes that these statements are at odds with one another, Rav Chaim Shaul Kaufman suggests in his sefer Mishchas Shemen that they can be resolved based on the Targum Sheini’s (Esther 3:3) statement that because Binyomin did not bow to Eisav (since Yosef intervened), Rochel’s pregnancy was extended so that he could be born in Eretz Yisrael. Thus, although Rochel conceived Binyomin while she was still in Lavan’s house, she carried him for more than two years until he was born in Eretz Yisrael. (Parsha Potpouri, R’ Ozer Alport)
2)
i) If the mitzvah would be to eat it, then we would only have a zecher [remembrance] of the miracle at the time of eating, however, now that the mitzvah is to not eat it, we have a constant reminder, as every second that one doesn’t eat it, he has a reminder of the miracle.
ii) if the mitzvah would be in the positive, it would be very hard to fulfill as it only applies to animals and not birds, and one would have to shect [slaughter] an entire animal just to eat a kezayis of gid hanoshe. Additionally, only one who could afford an entire animal would be able to fulfill the mitzvah. This would result in the remembrance of the miracle being uncommon, however, now that the mitzvah is in the negative, everyone is able to fulfil the mitzvah and there is a constant reminder of the special miracle that happened to Yaakov.
iii) If the mitzvah would be in the positive, then there would need to be a time when to fulfill the mitzvah, as it can’t be that there would be a mitzvah 24/7 to eat the gid hanoshe. As a result, it would be a time bound mitzvah, and this would mean that women would be exempt. However, the Torah wanted that women also merit in this mitzvah and remember the miracle, therefore, it was given in the negative as a lav, and now women also have the mitzvah. (The above three answers are from R’ Shamai Gross shlita, cited in Madanay Asher)
iv) If the mitzvah would be in the positive and the mitzvah would be to eat the gid hanoshe, then it wouldn’t be recognizable that one is eating it to remember the miracle, as one would simply be eating the entire animal. Therefore, the Torah was forced to instruct that one refrain from eating it, and this way it is recognizable.
v) According to the opinion that אין בגידין בנותן טעם – sinews don’t have any taste, we can understand why there is no positive mitzvah to eat it, as it doesn’t taste of anything, and it is simply עץ בעלמא – tastes like wood. (The above two answers, are from R’ David Lisisin shlita, cited in Madanay Asher)
vi) The Chinuch explains that the idea behind the mitzvah of gid hanoshe is so that Klal Yisrael have a constant reminder that even though they are going through lots of tzorus [tragedies] in galus [exile] under the hands of the nations of the world and from the descents of Eisav, we are guaranteed that we won’t get lost and we will always survive, and one day we will be redeemed just like Yaakov was. If this is the reason, we can understand why the mitzvah is in the negative, as we need a constant reminder. If the mitzvah would be in the positive, we would only have this lesson at the time of the mitzvah, and not constantly. (R’ Yaakov Yisrael Meizner, cited in Madanay Asher)
3)
i) The Mizrachi answers that: לא נחשב לו כל הפיזור ההוא של הדורון לכלום – In Yaakov Avinu’s eyes, all the money he spent on the gifts wasn’t considered anything.
ii) The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh answers, that whatever Yaakov Avinu spent when sending gifts to Eisav, Hashem repaid him for. And that is what the pasuk means when it says: בבאו מפדן ארם – “coming from Padan Aram”; the pasuk is saying that even though Yaakov sent lots of gifts to Eisav, when he arrived at Shechem he had just as much money as he had when he left Padan Aram.
iii) The Chasam Sofer answers this question based on a Gemara in Bava Basra (9b). The Gemara darshens the pasuk "ונוגשיך צדקה", that: כל מה שישראל נותנים מסים לאומות העולם נחשב לצדקה – “Any taxes that the Jewish people pay to the nations of the world, is considered tzedokah”. Based on this, the Chasam Sofer explains: The presents that Yaakov sent to Eisav were like taxes to the nations of the world and were therefore considered like tzedokah. Since it was considered tzedokah, it was considered as if he never lost anything, therefore, he was still considered שלם בממונו - complete with his money.
The Tzror HaMor adds, that there is proof that what Yaakov sent to Eisav was considered tzedokah and considered like ma’aser kesofim, as if not, why does the Torah go out of its way to detail in exact detail the presents that Yaakov gave. By Yitzchak we find that the Torah says he had me’ah she’orim of grain, and Chazal understand that the Torah tells us this to teach us that Yitzchak separated ma’aser, therefore, here as well, the fact that the Torah enumerates in exact detail all the presents that Yaakov sent, it must be that it was given as ma’aser kesofim.
iv) The Madanay Asher suggests, that when giving money to a brother it isn’t considered a loss, as two brothers are considered one guf [body], and even a brother as wicked as Eisav is still considered one guf, therefore, Yaakov was still considered “complete”, as the money went from one pocket to the next.
4)
The Taz (Yoreh De’ah 249) writes that it is forbidden to pay taxes from ma’aser kesofim. Although the Gemara says in Bava Basra that what the nations of the world take by force is considered tzedokah, it is considered paying up debts from tzedokah money, and one is not allowed to do that. The proof is, money that one spends on feeding his young children is also considered tzedokah, like the Gemara in Kesubos (50a) tells us, that it is included in עושה צדקה בכל עת – one who does tzedokah at all times, yet, would one entertain the possibility that one may use ma’aser kesofim to feed his children? Definitely not, therefore, one can’t pay tax using ma’aser kesofim either.
The Shu”t Chavas Yair (siman 224) writes: When Chazal say, “taxes are considered tzedokah”, it doesn’t literally mean that if one pays tax he fulfills the mitzvah of tzedokah.
The sefer Rishon LeTzion (from the Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh on Yoreh De’ah 249) writes: One only needs to work out how much ma’aser kesofim to give, after he has deducted what he needs to pay for tax.
He cites proof from Hilchos Pe’ah, where we find that pe’ah is exempt from ma’aser, since one is obligated to give it away. We see that if one is obligated to give something away, it doesn’t need to be included in his ma’aser calculations, therefore, the same thing is with ma’aser kesofim.
The Birkay Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 249:19) cites the above, and he says: The comparison of ma’aser kesofim to ma’aser by pe’ah is not so simple, as pe’ah is a special din learnt out from a pasuk.
The Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak (Vol. 5, siman 34) writes: Halachah lema’aseh, one isn’t able to deduct tax from his ma’aser kesofim calculations, and one must give ma’aser even on the money he pays towards tax. (So, if one earns 100,000 and he needs to pay tax of 20,000 he must still give 10,000 as ma’aser kesofim.)
5)
In this week’s parsha we have the pasuk: וירץ עשיו לקראתו וגו' וישקהו וגו' – “Eisav ran towards him etc. and kissed him etc.” (33:4) The word וישקהו in the Sefer Torah has dots on top of it. The Sifri cited by Rashi brings a machlokes as to what the dots teach us. One opinion maintains that this teaches us that Eisav didn’t kiss him with a full heart. However, R’ Shimon learns the opposite, he says: הלכה בידוע שעשיו שונא ליעקב – there is a well-established halachah that Eisav hates Yaakov, and the dots are teaching us that this time, however, he was overcome with mercy and kissed him with a full heart.
The halachah is (Yoreh De’ah 88) that it is forbidden to place meat and milk on the same table, as we are worried that one may come to eat them together (unless one puts something in between the meat and milk to serve as a reminder).
The question is: If a Jewish person owns a building company and employs some Arabs, may he sit down to eat at the same table as his Arab workers, if he is eating meat and they are eating milk or vice versa, as הלכה בידוע שעשיו שונא ליעקב, therefore, there is no reason to be worried that they will mix and share food, or do we still say it is forbidden?
The Shach (Yoreh De’ah, 88:2) quotes a Ran which says: “A Jew may eat at the same table as a non-Jew, if the non-Jew is eating neveilah, as Chazal only made a harchokah [a need to keep a distance] by meat and milk as each item by itself is permissible, however, neveilah even by itself is forbidden, therefore, they never made the harchokah.” From the Ran it would seem that by meat and milk it would be forbidden to eat at the same table as a non-Jew.
The Pleisi (siman 88) asks on the Ran: ובאמת לא הבנתי מי שם אחוה וריעות בין יהודי לעכו"ם, הלא הלבבות רחוקות, ואין פירוד לבבות כפירוד הדתות ואפילו שימת חן אסרוהו, וא"כ הוי ליה כאכסניא וכבני אדם שאינם מכירין זה את זה, והיש יותר איבה מבין שני בעלי דתות, נראים כאוהבין בשעת הנאתן – “The truth is, I don’t understand, who suddenly made this great friendship between the Jew and non-Jew. The hearts of the two are very distant, and there is no greater distancing of hearts than two different religions. Even showing grace to a non-Jew is forbidden, therefore, it is no better than two guests who don’t recognize each other (where we aren’t worried that they will mix food). Is there any greater hatred than two different religions, who are pretending to get on when they are benefiting from each other?”
The Darkei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah 88:2) writes: From the words of the Pleisi it would seem, that even if a non-Jew and Jew seem to get on and love each other, it would still be permissible for them to eat at the same table meat and milk, as in the end of the day “there is no greater distancing of hearts than two different religions”.
However, the Yad Yehudah (88:2) writes: If they recognize and get on with each other, then it is forbidden to eat at the same table.
The Pri To’ar is also stringent, however, he says that if the non-Jew brings his own food from his own house, that itself creates a big hekker [reminder not to mix], and even if he brings his own meat or cheese there is no problem. However, if the food comes from the Jew’s house, then it is problematic.
The Dalsei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah, siman 88 end of s.k. 6, cited in Darkei Teshuvah) writes: If the non-Jew is eating kosher milk and is being hired by a Jewish boss, and the Jew is providing the food, we are not worried that the Jewish boss will mix food together as: השתא משלו נותן לו לאכול יאכל ממנו – if he is the one providing the food, is he then going to go and eat from it (Kesubos 57).
The Madanay Asher points out that according to the Pleisi that it is permissible for a Jew and non-Jew to eat milk and meat at the same table, we can answer the question of the Achronim who ask what practical difference does the halachah of הלכה בידוע שעשיו שונא ליעקב, make. As based on the above, a big difference is, that when a Jew and non-Jew eat milk and meat at the same table, there is no need for a hekker.
