HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-holiday@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       SPECIAL SHAVUOT PACKAGE Part 1

                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
                           
          YHE-HOLIDAY: SPECIAL HOLIDAY PACKAGES
                           
                 SHAVUOT Package Part 1
                           
This package contains:

1.  Shavuot  and  the Mitzva of Charity,  by  Rav  Mosheh
Lichtenstein
2. The Shofar of Sinai, by Rav Yonatan Grossman
3. "Examine it Through and Through - For All is Contained
Therein," by Rav Jonathan Mishkin

*********************************************************

            Shavuot and the Mitzva of Charity
                           
               By Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein
                           
    
     Upon  reading  the  23rd chapter of  Vayikra,   which
contains  a  highly ordered presentation  of  the  yearly
cycle of the chagim (festivals), one is struck by a verse
that  appears strangely out of place: "And as you harvest
the  harvest of the your land, do not eliminate the  edge
of  the  field and the leftover gatherings do not gather,
to the poor and migrant leave them, I am Hashem your God"
(v.  22).   Though  helping the poor  is  undoubtedly   an
important mitzva and gemilut chasadim is one of the three
pillars  of the universe, its appearance in the midst  of
the  halakhot of the holidays is perplexing. What is  the
connection  between  this  mitzva  and  the   mitzva    to
commemorate the festivals? Is it possible that there is a
link between these two seemingly unconnected ideas, or is
their juxtaposition side by side merely coincidental?
    
     Moreover,  there is an additional problem  regarding
the  inclusion  of  this verse in Vayikra  23,  since  an
almost  identical formulation of these very same  mitzvot
that  mandate  the granting of agricultural leftovers  to
the  poor  previously appeared in the  Torah  (only  four
chapters earlier), and there would seem to be no need  to
repeat  a  mitzva  that  we are  already  familiar   with.
Therefore,  it is not only the context of our verse  that
is  the issue, but also its seeming redundancy, a problem
that is no less perplexing than the former.
    
     Upon   further  reflection,  we  are   led   to   the
realization  that  the  answer  to  these  questions    is
implicit  in  the questions themselves.  The  inescapable
conclusion  is  that  there is  an  essential  connection
between  the chagim and tzedaka (charity) that  justifies
the  inclusion  of  tzedaka within the framework  of  the
festivals.  Rather than viewing the tzedaka verse  as  an
insertion  that interrupts the flow of the narrative,  it
must   be   perceived  that  the  idea  of    charity   is
intrinsically related to our celebration of the holidays.
In  the following paragraphs, we shall attempt to analyze
and elucidate the connection between these two mitzvot.
    
SHAVUOT IN THE TORAH
    
     Although  Shavuot is popularly associated  with   the
celebration  of  Matan Torah (a motif  finding  its  main
halakhic expression in the prayers of the day), its focal
point is not the historical event, as the section of  the
Torah that we are dealing with makes quite clear. Nowhere
does  the  Torah associate Shavuot with Matan  Torah  (or
with any other historical event), nor does the Torah even
relate  to  us the exact date of Matan Torah -  evidently
not  deeming  its  commemoration  to  be  of   significant
occasion. Indeed, the date that is halakhically  accepted
by many as the date of Matan Torah is the seventh and not
the sixth day of Sivan, although the sixth is the date on
which  we celebrate Shavuot [1].  Nowhere throughout  the
Gemara's  long  discussion regarding the  exact  date  of
Matan  Torah - whether it was on the sixth or the seventh
of  Sivan  - is any attempt made to prove the point  from
the  date  of Shavuot. Of course, such an endeavor  would
have  been impossible, for there is no date in the  Torah
for  Shavuot!  Rather, the Torah merely  designates  that
Shavuot  be observed on the fiftieth day of the Omer,  an
instruction  that does not necessarily translate  into  a
fixed date (due to the fluctuations of the calendar  when
it  was dependent upon the actual observation of the  new
moon,  rather than being astronomically calculated as  we
do  nowadays).  As the Gemara in Rosh Ha-shana  (6b)  was
quick  to  observe: "Shavuot is sometimes on  the  fifth,
sometimes  on  the sixth, sometimes on  the  seventh  [of
Sivan]." The upshot of all of these calendar calculations
is that Shavuot is essentially independent of Matan Torah
and  its essence must be sought elsewhere, outside of the
historical arena.
    
     If  it is not Matan Torah and the historical Shavuot
that  are  the  motivating factor  of  the  holiday,   the
alternative  that  presents itself  is  the  agricultural
factor - Shavuot celebrates the bounty of the harvest and
is  therefore known as Chag Ha-bikkurim (festival of  the
first  fruits).  The holiday's essence is  expressed  and
realized  by  the  Shtei Ha-lechem (two loaves)  offering
from the new wheat that is brought to the Beit Ha-mikdash
on Shavuot morning. The Ramban (Vayikra 23:15) points out
that  the  Torah does not tell us to bring the Shtei  Ha-
lechem on Shavuot; rather, it states that on the day that
the  Shtei Ha-lechem are brought, the holiday of  Shavuot
should  be  proclaimed: "And you shall proclaim  on  this
very day [in which the korban was brought] a holy day..."
(Vayikra  23:21).  This is due to the fact, explains  the
Ramban,  that  the  festival itself is generated  by  the
first  fruits of the Shtei Ha-lechem, whose role  is  not
that of a sacrifice brought on a holiday, but rather  the
raison d'etre of the entire chag. Therefore, the Shtei Ha-
lechem, unlike other holiday offerings, appear in Vayikra
(where the Torah is concerned with establishing the basic
system  of  the  chagim) and are  not  relegated  to   the
section  of the Torah in Bamidbar (ch. 28-9) that details
the  various sacrifices that are offered on the holidays.
It  is  around this korban and the theme of  the  harvest
that the holiday of Shavuot revolves.
    
     The  idea of bikkurim expresses gratitude to God for
the  bounty that He has granted us, brought about by  our
recognition  during harvest time that He has  granted  us
our  sustenance. The Torah elaborates upon this point  in
its  treatment of the bikkurim that the individual brings
to  the Mikdash from his personal harvest (Devarim  26:1-
11),  and  it  is  this  same  sense  of   dependence  and
gratitude  that  is celebrated by the  entire  nation  on
Shavuot.   The   Ramban   emphasizes   the    element   of
thanksgiving in the Shtei Ha-lechem, claiming (based upon
their   similarities)  that  it  is  a  form    of   Todah
(thanksgiving)  offering: "The Torah  ordered  that  [the
Shtei  Ha-lechem]  should be chametz, since  they  are  a
thanksgiving  to  God  that He has provided  the  harvest
cycle to us, and a thanksgiving offering is brought  from
chametz."
    
     Thus,  Shavuot  has an agricultural  rather   than  a
historical focus, and the controlling principle that sets
the  chag in motion is the concept of gratitude to He who
has   provided  for  us.  Therefore  Shavuot  is   grouped
together with Sukkot and not with Pesach. A brief look at
a  verse  or  two  in Shemot will suffice to  demonstrate
these  relationships:  "The Feast  of  Matzot  you   shall
observe,  seven days eat matza as you were instructed  on
the occasion of the spring month, in it you left Egypt  .
and the Feast of the Harvest, the first fruit of what you
have planted in the field, and the Feast of Gathering  at
year's  end when you are gathering your produce from  the
field."  Although  Pesach, Shavuot  and  Sukkot  are   all
mentioned  in the context of the seasons and  the  yearly
cycle,  there is a clear distinction between  Pesach  and
the other two chagim. Regarding Pesach, springtime is not
mentioned  as the reason for the festival but  simply  as
the date when Israel left Egypt, while Shavuot and Sukkot
are described as feasts of the harvest [2].
    
TWO ASPECTS OF TZEDAKA
    
     Having  discussed  the  concept  of   Shavuot  as  it
appears  in  the  Torah,  it is  now  time  to   turn  our
attention to tzedaka, the mitzva that accompanies Shavuot
in  Vayikra  23.  Of  special  interest  in  the   Torah's
treatment of tzedaka is the attention that it pays to the
mindset  of  the giver. Not only is tzedaka a  mitzva  to
provide  for the needy, it is also directed at the  moral
state of the provider.

     When  there  sbe  a pauper from  amongst   your
     brethren  in  one of your dwelling  places   in
     the  land that Hashem your God gives  you,  do
     not  harden  your heart and do not close  your
     fist  from  your poor brother. For  you   shall
     generously  open your hand to him and  provide
     him  with all of his missing needs. You  shall
     give  to  him  and your heart  should   not  be
     upset, for due to this you will be blessed  by
     Hashem your God. (Devarim 15:7-8, 10)

     Aside from the principle of providing for all of the
pauper's needs, the Torah also addresses itself to us and
warns us neither to harden our hearts and close our fists
to  the poor person nor to fret over money that is given.
The  Rambam  was quite aware of this and emphasized  this
element in his writings. In his list of mitzvot (Sefer Ha-
mitzvot, prohibition #232), the Rambam explicitly  states
that  the  negative  command is a moral  imperative  that
relates  to the giver and his moral attributes: "This  is
an   imperative  to  prevent  us  from  the    traits   of
miserliness  and  cruelty."  A  careful  reading  of   his
statements  in Mishneh Torah seems to indicate  that  the
Rambam, following in the footsteps of the Torah,  drew  a
distinction between the positive commandment  of  tzedaka
that  is receiver-oriented and the negative command  that
is giver-focused. The text is as follows:

     It  is  a positive commandment to give charity
     to  the  poor  according  to  the   poor  man's
     needs,  if  the giver has the ability,  as   is
     said,  "You shall open your hand to him,"   and
     it  is  said,  "You shall support the   settler
     and  the  dweller,"  and  it  is   said,  "Your
     brother shall live with you." Anyone who  sees
     a  poor  man requesting tzedaka and turns  his
     eyes  away  from  him and does  not   give  him
     tzedaka  has  violated a negative commandment,
     as  is said, "Do not harden your heart and  do
     not  close your fist from your needy brother."
     (Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 7:1-2)
    
     Regarding   the   positive    command,   the   Rambam
determines that one must give to the poor to supply their
needs,  without specifying any restrictions as to who  is
entitled  to  support; the negative command, however,  is
limited  to a person who sees a pauper begging for  money
and  doesn't  assist him. However, if one is  aware  that
there are needy people in distant places but they do  not
actually appear to request aid, there is no transgression
of  the negative mitzva, although he remains in violation
of  the positive mitzva. The reason for this is that  the
positive  mitzva  is directed at the needs  of  the  poor
person  and is an expression of the obligation to provide
for  these needs. So long as the needs are real  and  the
resources  exist to supply them, there is  no  difference
whether  there is physical contact or not.  The  negative
commandment,  though,  relates to  the  indifference  and
apathy  of those who refuse to help a fellow human being;
in  this  regard, there is a difference between  abstract
theoretical  knowledge and encountering an actual  person
of  flesh  and blood with real needs. While  a  sensitive
person  is quite able to perceive the needs of those  who
are not present and to imaginatively empathize with them,
the   inability   to  do  so  is  not   indifference   but
insensitivity. The apathy and hardness of heart that  the
Torah prohibits exist only when we remain unconcerned and
uninterested in the face of need.
    
     The dual elements of concern for the actual needs of
the  destitute  and  the moral state  of  the  giver   are
reflected  in many other halakhot of tzedaka,  but  space
does  not  permit us to discuss them here. It  should  at
least be mentioned, though, that one of the main areas in
which  this  distinction  plays  a  major  role  is    the
extensive   discussion  of  Talmudic   commentators    and
Halakhists  regarding  the use  of  coercion  to  collect
tzedaka.
    
TZEDAKA AS A MITZVA BETWEEN MAN AND GOD
    
     Having  established that the mitzva  of  tzedaka   is
concerned with the bestower as well as the receiver,  let
us  examine an additional element of tzedaka. Not only is
it a mitzva pertaining to the relationships between human
beings (bein adam le-chaveiro) or within the human  soul,
it  also  participates in the man-God relationship  (bein
adam  la-Makom).  By  giving  tzedaka,  man  fulfils    an
obligation  and establishes a relationship  with  God  as
well as with his fellow human.
    
     This  idea  is  expressed in a series of   statements
that appear in the Gemara on this topic (Bava Batra 10a).
    
     .One  who  gives a penny to a poor  person   is
     privileged  to appear before the Shekhina,  as
     is  said,  "I will see you with tzedek"   [lit.
     justice,  but  the Gemara is  punning  on   the
     connection  that  the Hebrew language  implies
     between  tzedek and tzedaka] .R. Elazar  would
     give  a  penny to a poor person and afterwards
     would pray. It is written, he stated, that  "I
     shall  appear  before  you  with   tzedek."  R.
     Yochanan  said:  The statement  that   "He  who
     grants  to a pauper loans to God" could  never
     have  been uttered by us if it weren't written
     in  the  Tanakh [since it implies that God  is
     in  debt to us], as the receiver of a loan  is
     indebted  to  the  lender  as  a   slave  to  a
     master.

     Two  points  are  emphasized in  this   passage:  the
ability to approach God by means of tzedaka and the favor
that  man  supposedly  does  to  God  by  supporting   the
destitute. As the Gemara noted, the second claim is quite
radical and requires explanation. How indeed can man loan
to God, and what is the significance of such a mechanism?
    
     Man,  entering into the world as a helpless  pitiful
creature,  amasses a huge debt of gratitude to those  who
supply  his  needs.  He is indebted to  his  parents  for
feeding,  diapering, sheltering and  supporting  him,  to
society  for  providing security,  to  his  teachers  for
knowledge  and,  foremost, to God for his existence.  Man
repays this debt and does not remain ungrateful by acting
in  two  ways. First, he recognizes and acknowledges  his
debt  by expressing thankfulness to those who have helped
him.  He  thanks his parents and teachers by articulating
the sense of gratitude that he feels within, and verbally
acknowledges  the institutions of society  that  provided
for his needs. The same principle guides his relationship
to God; an essential part of man's posture towards God is
acknowledgement  of his dependence. This  idea,  a  basic
tenet  of  Judaism,  was strongly emphasized  by  Rabeinu
Bachye in his classic work Chovot Ha-levavot, who made it
into  the cornerstone of his entire religious system,  as
well  as  by  the  Ramban,  from  whose  commentary    the
following passage is quoted (Shemot 13:16):

     The  goal of all the mitzvot is that we should
     believe  in  our  God and acknowledge  to   Him
     that He created us, for this is the final  end
     of  creation, as we have no other  reason  for
     original creation, and God who is supreme  and
     transcendent  has  no other  desire  from   the
     material   world   except  that    man   should
     recognize and acknowledge his God who  created
     him.  For  this  is the purpose of   synagogues
     and  the merit of communal prayer, that  there
     should  be  a place for people to  gather   and
     acknowledge God who created them and  to  make
     known this fact and proclaim to Him that  they
     are His creatures.

     The  second  element that enables man to  repay   his
debt is rooted in the world of action rather than in  the
abstract  sphere of verbal expression, requiring  man  to
engage  in  acts of giving to others. The  child  doesn't
necessarily repay his parents by reciprocating them  with
food,  shelter, clothing, etc., but by providing for  the
next generation. By diapering and feeding their baby, the
young  couple  repays their parents, and by teaching  the
next  generation of students, the talmid  discharges  the
debt  he  owes his rebbe. Had they not provided  for  the
next  generation, they indeed would have been  guilty  of
ingratitude, since their actions would reveal that taking
care of the young and weak is not a responsibility but  a
favor; however, by shouldering this responsibility,  they
indicate  that  they are not seeking to  receive  without
giving, and that they are deserving of what they received
since  they are willing to give as well. Simply  put,  he
who  gives has the right to receive, and he who  receives
justifies this by giving to others. Thus, the child grows
up  and  raises  his  own child, the  student  becomes   a
teacher and teaches his students, the civilian serves  in
the military or volunteers in a hosp and so on.
    
     The  same  holds true in regard to our   relationship
with God. We must not only praise and thank Him, but must
also engage in actions that morally justify our receiving
God's  bounty. The vehicle through which this is achieved
is  tzedaka. A Chasidic story that I heard from my rebbe,
Rav  Amital,  will help us illustrate this point.  It  is
told  of a well-to-do chasid that he would annually visit
his  rebbe to receive a blessing that his business should
be  successful.  The rebbe would give  the  berakha,  the
chasid would go home and the business prospered. Thus the
routine continued year after year and all were satisfied.
One  year, though, the chasid came and was told that  the
rebbe  was out of town. Upon inquiring, he was told  that
the  rebbe  had  gone  to  visit his  own  rebbe.   Having
discovered  that  his  rebbe  uses  the  services  of    a
different rebbe, the chasid decided that he, too,  should
start  going  to the other rebbe.  After all,  the  other
rebbe  must be the greater of the two, for his own  rebbe
himself   recognizes  and  accepts  him   as    a   rebbe.
Thereafter, he switched his allegiance and began visiting
the  new rebbe, figuring that if a minor league rebbe did
him  such  great good, then obviously his  business  will
grow  and expand by leaps and bounds when a major  league
rebbe will bestow upon him his blessings.
    
     Of  course,  the opposite happened. From the   moment
that   he  switched  to  the  new  mentor,  his   finances
deteriorated, his losses multiplied and he lost more  and
more  customers. No matter how much he went to the famous
rebbe,  things only got worse. Finally, on the  verge  of
bankruptcy,  he went back to his original  rebbe  out  of
despair  and asked him: "Why is it when I used  to  visit
you,  I prospered, yet now that I follow your rebbe,  who
is  admittedly greater, my situation has worsened  rather
than  improved?" The rebbe answered him: "As long as  you
innocently and indiscriminately went to a local rebbe and
did  not attempt to rate his greatness, God also gave  to
you  indiscriminately. However, the moment that you began
to  discriminate in selecting a rebbe, God  also  applied
the   same  standard  to  you;  He,  too,  found    better
candidates to give to."
    
     It  is  exactly this idea that expresses  itself   in
tzedaka.  If a person is willing to give indiscriminately
to  others  regardless of whether they are  deserving  or
not, if he reacts to need by extending a helping hand, if
he doesn't enter into any calculations when approached by
a  broken  soul,  he  justifies the fact  that  he,   too,
receives from God. However, if a person declines to  help
a destitute person, justifying his refusal by blaming the
needy  for their predicament and thrusting upon them  the
burden of self-reliance, he delegitimizes the bounty that
God  gave  him. For no matter how unworthy  a  particular
person  may  be in relation to other members of  society,
the  disparity  that  exists  between  God  and  man    is
infinitely greater. If receiving assistance is predicated
upon worthiness, then no human is entitled to the support
that God gives us. Only by recognizing the obligation  to
give  indiscriminately  can we  morally  and  religiously
justify our expectation to be supported by God.
    
     It is this idea of providing for others in a similar
manner  to  the support we receive that is meant  by  the
Gemara in its statement that giving to the poor is a loan
to  God. If a person passes on his wealth to others,  his
willingness to do so proves that he is not ungrateful  to
God  and  that he does not treat his wealth as a  private
privilege  but rather as a resource that must  be  shared
with  others; in this sense, he is handing over his money
to God who channels it to other needy people. This is the
basis of the claim that, in a sense, he is lending to the
Master  of the Universe by engaging, in a Godlike manner,
in granting livelihood to other inhabitants of the world.
Yet  the  real  significance of this munificence  is  the
recognition and acknowledgement of his debt to God, which
obligates  him to support others as he was provided  for.
He  received from the Master of the Universe and he lends
back  to the universe; thus, he has entered with God into
a  relationship of acknowledgement that is  reflected  in
the  circumstances  of receiving from God  and  bestowing
upon  His  creatures,  and he has  thus  escaped  from   a
posture of ingratitude to his Creator.
    
     Therefore,  a person who gives tzedaka is privileged
to  appear  before  God,  since  he  has  recognized   and
acknowledged  God and approaches Him out of  a  sense  of
gratitude  and  thankfulness.  It is for this  very  same
reason  that  R.  Elazar  would  give  tzedaka  prior   to
davening. By demonstrating his willingness to help others
generously  and  by acknowledging the need  to  help  the
weak,  man  creates  a context that will  enable  him  to
approach God with a series of requests for his own needs.
    
     Thus,  tzedaka is not only an obligation to  provide
for  the  weak  members of society and an  imperative  to
prevent  cruelty and miserliness, but also  an  important
element in our relationship with God.
    
GRATITUDE
    
     Having  arrived at this point, we can now return  to
our  starting  point  regarding  the  connection  between
tzedaka and Shavuot. The basic motif of Shavuot,  as  was
demonstrated above, is gratitude to God for  the  harvest
and, as such, it must be marked by the expression of  our
gratitude  to God for His bounty. This, as was  explained
above,  requires  a  dual track. On  the  one  hand,   the
obligation   of  gratitude  is  discharged  through    the
recognition  and  articulation  of  our  debt.  This    is
achieved  on Shavuot through the medium of the Shtei  Ha-
lechem   offering  (which  functions  as  a   thanksgiving
offering) and, subsequently, throughout the entire summer
by  the  bringing of various first fruits to the  Mikdash
and  the  recitation of the text from the Torah  (Devarim
26:  1-11) that expresses our thankfulness.  On the other
hand, though, there is a need to acknowledge our debt  to
God  and  to make ourselves worthy of His benevolence  by
being  liberal and generous towards others, as He  is  to
us.  It is through tzedaka that this goal is achieved.
    
     Therefore, the Torah emphasizes tzedaka in the midst
of  the  section  dealing with Shavuot, although  it  has
already  mentioned the very same mitzva  a  few  chapters
earlier.  There (Vayikra 19), it appeared in the  context
of  mitzvot  dealing  with the relationships  in  society
between  the  strong and the weak, and it is  flanked  by
mitzvot  of  a  similar nature; here  (Vayikra  23),  the
mitzva  of tzedaka is repeated and positioned within  the
Shavuot  narrative as an integral part of the  observance
of  the holiday. The same paradigm repeats itself in  the
Torah's  treatment  of Shavuot (and Sukkot)  in  Devarim.
There,  too, the Torah integrates the mitzva  of  tzedaka
into  its  treatment of the festival and  emphasizes  the
need  to  provide  for  the poor in  festive  times   (see
Devarim  16:9-17, Rashi 16:11, and the Rambam in  Hilkhot
Yom  Tov  6:18).  As  in Vayikra, the Torah's  directives
regarding tzedaka in the context of the festivals are due
not  only  to  sensitivity towards the  weak  members  of
society  but  are  also  an expression  of  the   inherent
connection between tzedaka and the chagim.
    
     The  connection  between  tzedaka  and   Shavuot   is
further  expressed in the story of Ruth (read on  Shavuot
morning),  for it is not only the drama of her conversion
but  also the motif of Gemilut Chasadim that lies at  the
heart of the megilla - as the Midrash already pointed out
- and that associates it with the feast of Shavuot.
    
LEKET AND PE'AH
    
     In  this  regard, a final point is worthy of notice.
Throughout  our  discussion,  we  have  treated    tzedaka
generically and have dwelled upon the connection  between
tzedaka  and  Shavuot without attempting to differentiate
between  various forms of tzedaka, as the basic principle
is   applicable  to  all  forms  of  help  to   the  poor.
Nevertheless,  it  is  not coincidental  that  the  Torah
singled  out  a particular form of tzedaka - agricultural
leftovers  -  as being intrinsically related to  Shavuot.
The  reasons  for this are twofold.  The first  and  most
obvious  reason is the agricultural element that  is  the
underlying  cause  of Shavuot and is therefore  the  most
appropriate form of tzedaka to associate with  the  Feast
of the Harvest.
    
     There  is, th an additional rationale to the  choice
of  these  specific mitzvot. Unlike the classic  case  of
tzedaka,  in  which  the  poor  man's  needs  are   indeed
provided  for,  the mitzvot of pe'ah (leaving  uncut  the
edge  of  the field) and leket (leaving in the field  the
grain that falls to the ground during the harvest) cannot
be conceived as designed to support the needy, since they
do  not  provide trustworthy resources that the poor  can
rely  upon.  Pe'ah has no minimal requirement;  even  the
most  miniscule amount suffices to discharge the Biblical
obligation,  so that it is obviously impossible  for  the
poverty-stricken  to  look  to  pe'ah  as  a  source    of
meaningful income. If this is the case with pe'ah, it  is
doubly  true  regarding  leket, which  is  of  a   totally
haphazard nature. After all, if the reapers were  careful
and  did not drop anything, there is no leket at all [3].
The  necessary inference that must be deduced from  these
considerations is that these mitzvot are not intended  to
provide for the needs of the poor - for that there is the
mitzva of tzedaka that directs us to supply the destitute
with  all their needs - but rather are aimed at the moral
and religious state of the field's owner. In other words,
the  elements of tzedaka that are expressed in pe'ah  and
leket are exactly those that contribute to our observance
of Shavuot. Therefore, the Torah chose to highlight these
particular  manifestations of tzedaka as being associated
with Shavuot.
    
    
FOOTNOTES

[1]  See  Shabbat  86b-88a, Magen Avraham  OC  494:1  and
others.  A brief summary of the various proposals appears
in Rav S. Y. Zevin's Ha-mo'adim Ba-halakha in the section
on Shavout.

[2]  The  same  results are arrived at if one  refers  to
Shemot 34:18,22 and Devarim 16:1, 10-17.

[3] Megillat Ruth itself makes it clear that Naomi placed
no  great  hopes upon the expected results of the  leket,
and she certainly would have been right if not for Boaz's
artificial manipulation of the leket mechanism.


(This  is  an  abridged version of an article  that  will
appear  in  the forthcoming Dinner Journal of  the  Torat
Tzion Kollel in Cleveland.)

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH

********************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.