Dei'ah veDibur - Information & Insight
  

A Window into the Chareidi World

17 Adar I 5760 - February 23 2000 | Mordecai Plaut, director Published Weekly
NEWS

OPINION
& COMMENT

HOME
& FAMILY

IN-DEPTH
FEATURES

VAAD HORABBONIM HAOLAMI LEINYONEI GIYUR

TOPICS IN THE NEWS

HOMEPAGE

 

Sponsored by
Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Shema Yisrael Torah Network

Produced and housed by
Jencom

Opinion & Comment
The Mishkan -- a Mashkon-Security

by L. Jungerman

"These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle of the Testimony." Rashi: Mishkan is mentioned twice to allude to the Mikdosh that was pawned as a security, as it were, through two Destructions, for the sins of Israel."

The Admor of Ozorov explains the concept of the Churban in terms of a pledge, a security that was seized or claimed. He shows, in Be'er Moshe, how this idea can be applied with broader implications.

A study of the laws of pledges and securities entrusted with someone can teach us what lies in our power to deal with the Churban and how we can cause the Beis Hamikdosh to be rebuilt.

These laws state: "The creditor acquires the mashkon (pledge)" (Bovo Metzia 84). This means that the lender, in whose debt the borrower is, is permitted to sell the pledge as a means of collecting the debt owed him if the lender cannot repay him. There is another law, however, which stipulates that if the borrower is poor and has no garment or covering other than the one held in pledge, the lender must return him that pledge each day or night, respectively, so that he can use it for his needs. Why? Because the Torah states that "It is his protective garment; it is the clothing on his back. How will he lay down to sleep [without his blanket]?"

We must therefore conclude that what characterizes taking a pledge, and the difference between a pledge and a final settlement of a debt, involves the fact that so long as the collection is not absolute and the pledge is still in the category of a security, it remains necessary for the lender to take into consideration if the borrower is poor, in distress and left unprotected from the elements. In that case the lender must provide him with the use of his garment or covering, even though he technically owns the pledge since the borrower cannot pay his debt.

What is the reason for this? Is the pledge not rightfully the creditor's? Why must he take the debtor's financial distress into consideration?

The answer is written in the Torah: "And it shall be that if he cries out to Me, I will hearken, for I am merciful and cannot bear to see him in his misery."

The Torah teaches that when a poor man cries out in his affliction one cannot apply justice with the letter of the law. True, you are permitted by law to demand a pledge for security. And the debtor produces it from his own free will, not under duress, for that purpose. Nevertheless, you cannot ignore the cry of his plight. Hashem is Merciful; this is one of His thirteen attributes of lovingkindness. The application of this trait is that "I cannot bear to see his suffering."

Just like a softhearted person who is unable to witness an incident involving suffering, this characteristic of Hashem, His compassion, "disables" Him from seeing the pain of a human being crying out in his poverty. Therefore: "And it shall be when he cries out to Me, I will hear, for I am compassionate."

Beer Moshe concludes from this that if Chazal referred to the Beis Hamikdosh as a mashkon, they also determined that it is not decisive and final. It was destroyed, but if we feel the lack in the same manner as the poor man who lacks protective clothing, and if we cry out and beg like a poor man pleading for his life, then Hashem will surely give it back to us. Indeed, He will be obliged to do so!

A security is no more than a pledge entrusted to the lender with certain rules governing it. A security does not allow for the holder to ignore the distress of its real owner. If the latter is a poor man and this is his only covering, he needs it. If the question arises how he can sleep at night without his covering, the answer is: you must return it to him to use by nightfall.

Similarly, if the lack of the Mikdosh arouses the question with regard to us: How will we live [without it]? If the feeling is that it is an integral part of us, our only garment that has no replacement or substitute, that we lack the Mikdosh as a basic spiritual need, then "I will hearken, for I am Merciful and I cannot bear to see his suffering."

*

How great are the words of our Sages, continues the Beer Moshe. They even established a special blessing for the rebuilding of Yerushalayim among the blessings of the Haftorah. "Have compassion on Zion, for it is the House of our Life."

The underlying reason for our request for compassion for Zion is because it is beis chayeinu. Our very lives are dependent upon the rebuilding of Zion and Yerushalayim. Without them, our lives are meaningless and empty. And since the laws involving security pledges stipulate that it is necessary to return the security to its owner if he requires it as a very basic necessity then we, too, request that Hashem have mercy upon Zion, for it is our lifeblood.

He makes the request even more acute. Chazal also state that "A man does not let someone rob him of his light and remain silent" (Bovo Basra 60). This refers to a person whose neighbor expanded his apartment outward in such a way that it completely blocks off his source of light -- and he did not even protest. After a long period, he takes himself to beis din to complain that his neighbor has robbed him of the light he enjoyed before. The neighbor claims that he had no right to make a window facing the side where he expanded outward; the fact that he made a window gives him the right to build. "You set the precedent by making a window there. It was your initiative; I just followed your example, so what are you complaining about? I also have a right to do something."

Says the gemora: the very fact that the first one, who made the window, kept silent for such a long time, shows that his neighbor is right. Had he felt an injustice was being done to him, he would not have kept silent. He would have erupted in anger because "a person is incapable of having others shut off his source of light and keeping silent."

And so, Be'er Moshe asks the question: How can we remain silent over the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh? Is Yerushalayim not the Light of the World? The Beis Hamikdosh was the source of light for Israel and when it was destroyed, that light was extinguished. And we remain silent?

We must protest, for "And it shall be, if he cries out to Me - - I will hear! For I am compassionate." That is Hashem's attribute. He cannot bear to see a person suffer.

The Churban was not a final, established fact. It was only a pledge which must be reclaimed!


All material on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted.
Click here for conditions of use.