Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Torah Perspective on Culpability

At the end of parshas Shoftim, we have the involved ceremony that must be performed when an unidentified corpse is found outside the city boundaries. As part of that ceremony, the elders/spiritual leaders make a declaration that they did not murder this unknown person. Of course they didn't; so what's going on? Rashi explains on the spot that they mean that in their city strangers are treated with dignity and do not leave the city unescorted -- someone would surely have ensured his safety as he continued on his travels.

Great, so now we know what they are saying. But... if they did not ensure that strangers were treated with dignity and even given appropriate protection to the city limits, then the Torah would call them murderers?! In fact, a few parshios ago, Moshe Rabeinu tells the nation that as they take Eretz Yisrael, be sure to destroy the places of idol worship... then adds: But don't do that to HaShem. By which he means (again, courtesy of Rashi): Don't do things that could bring exile and then the Beis HaMikdash will be destroyed. So again, failure to live up to the high standards of the Torah is called destroying the Beis HaMikdash.

As I contemplated this -- that any time I act in a manner unbefitting a member of Klal Yisrael, then I am in the category of murderers and plunderers. Yikes. Is the Torah really that mean? I mean, I know it's not, but I was having trouble finding a positive spin on this. Baruch HaShem, I got the answer on my bike ride to work this morning from a Halacha Headlines podcast. It's a story I had heard before, but with some details that changed the whole message.

The Rashash, Rabbi Shmuel Strashun, the famous commentary on Talmud Bavli with at least one comment on each daf, many times helping to understand Rashi -- was a talmid chachamwho lived in Vilna. Let me rephrase that -- R' Strashun was known as a talmid chacham, but was more known as well to do businessman -- after all, in Vilna, everyone is a talmid chacham. There is a famous story about the Rashash. The Rashash ran a personally funded gemach. A baker came to him for a loan, which he was given for some term; let's say 90 days. The Rashash kept meticulous records and recorded the loan amount and due date. The baker returned on the due date and found the Rashash deep in learning -- as he usually was, but this time apparently was more involved than usual. The baker returned the money in an envelope which he handed to the Rashash; who thanked him and then went back to his gemara. The Rashash was so involved in the topic, that when he turned the page of his gemara, he also covered the envelope with the daf. Once the Rashash had finished for the day, he put the gemara back in it's place on the shelf.

Some time later, the Rashash was reviewing his records and found that the baker had not repaid -- actually, as we know, the baker had repaid, but it had not been written in the notebook. Long story short, there was a din Torah, the baker didn't have to (re)pay because it was one against one. However, the baker shortly went bankrupt and was shunned by everyone -- Humpf! What kind of person takes advantage of the kindness of the Rashash? He must have known that he'd go scott free based on a halachic technicality, but I don't have to do business with him.

Some time later, maybe a few years even, the Rashash was back in that gemara, found the envelope -- to his horror -- realized what had happened. He immediately ran to the (now ex-)baker, apologized profusely, and said he would let people know what happened. The (now ex-)baker simply noted that everyone would just be even more amazed by the righteousness of the Rashash to even help a poor gonif. There was no denying the facts. Then the Rashash had an idea -- Wait! I have a daughter and you have a son; let's make a shidduch! And so it happened, this simple Jew has the z'chus to make a shidduch for his own son with the daughter of the Rashash. Amazing, no? The Rashash took his culpability so seriously that he gave up on all the greatness that he could have achieved for his future generations by making a shidduch with this simple Jew.

That much I had heard before, but today I learned the last name of the had been baker -- Romm. Doesn't sound familiar? How about this: ראם. Still not? Open one of your gemaras and look near the bottom of the title page: בדפוס והוצאות האלמנה ואחים ראם. Printed and published by the widow and the brothers Romm.

Right... the son-in-law and his brother along with the Rashash's daughter started a publishing house and after the p'tira of the son-in-law published the now very well known Vilna Shas -- which includes the Rashash. (Yes, I know Wikipedia gives different yichus to the Widow Romm, but that's the way I heard the story from a reputable source.)

So the Rashash, by taking his responsibility for what had happened to the extreme, merited to be published in the back of our Shas and go from "just another gaon in Vilna" to, well, the Rashash.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction.  That is, even th

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Shabbo

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that referred to the noise of תקתוק