Weekly Thoughts

B"H. Shabbat Parashat Vayigash, 9th of Teves 5773

Our Sages Say

"I will go down with you into Egypt; and I will also surely bring you up again" (46:4) Come and see how beloved are Israel in the sight of G-d! To every place to which they were exiled, the Divine Presence went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Divine Presence was with them; they were exiled to Babylon, and the Divine Presence was with them; and when they will be redeemed in the future, the Divine Presence will be with them. ********* And Serach their sister (46:17) When Jacob's sons returned from Egypt with the news that Joseph is alive, they said: If we tell him straightaway, his soul will fly from his body. So they told Serach to play on her harp and sing, "Joseph lives, Joseph lives, and he is the ruler of Egypt," so that he should absorb the message slowly. Said Jacob to her: "The mouth that informed me that Joseph lives shall not taste death." Serach was among those who came out of Egypt and among those who entered the Land; She was the "wise woman" who handed over Sheva ben Bichri to Joab (II Samuel 20); in the end, she entered paradise alive

Holy Cow!

The principle behind the law ofEglah Arufahis that a person is responsible also for what occurs outside of his domain -- outside of the areas where he is fully in control. When a murdered traveler is found "out in the eld," the elders of the nearest city must go out there and bring theEglah Arufahto atone for the crime, although it occurred outside of their jurisdiction; for it was nevertheless their responsibility to send the traveler off with adequate provision and protection.

This is the deeper signicance of the message which Joseph sent to Jacob. Father, he was saying, I have not forgotten the law ofEglah Arufah. I have been exiled from the sacred environment of your home, but I have not allowed my soul to travel to the spiritual no-man's-land of Egypt without provision; I have not abandoned it to a spiritual death with the justication that "This is outside of my element; I have no way of dealing with this." After 22 years of slavery, imprisonment and political power in the most depraved society on the face of the earth, I am the same Joseph who left your home on the day that we studied the laws ofEglah Arufah.

This was the message that "revived the spirit of Jacob their father.Joseph dreamed a dream, and told it to his brothers... "Behold, we were binding sheaves in the eld, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and bowed down to my sheaf." (37:5-7).

Chassidic

Continuation Non-Agreement

Thoughts
For all the years that the children of Israel were in Egypt, Jacob's cedars served as a link to their past and a promise of their future. "This is not your home," the growing trees said. "You, like us, hail from a loftier, holier place. And soon you will leave this depraved land, to be reclaimed by Gd as His people. You will then uproot us from this foreign land and carry us triumphantly to Sinai, where you will construct out of us a dwelling for the Divine presence in your midst." New! Check out our new dynamic & Interactive Newsletter. You can watch the latest Video classes,Dvar Torah, or The Kollel's upcoming events. To Subscribe Please contact me at RabbiMPinto@ Gmail.com

Case: The plainti (=pl) worked as a fundraiser for a non-prot organization (=def), based on a one-year contract. After the year, the two sides agreed that pl would continue working for def, but a new contract was not signed. After a certain amount of time, the relationship broke down, and def red pl without further pay any prior notice. The original employment contract stated that def had to give two months warning before letting pl go, and, therefore, pl demands two months pay. Def claims that the old employment terms do not extend beyond the end of the original agreement.

Ruling:The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 333:8), based on the Rivash, writes: "If a chazan was hired by the leaders of the community for a year with certain conditions and then he was rehired by dierent leaders without stipulations, he is certainly hired according to the original conditions. However, that is only if he was actively rehired for another year, but if he just continued in silence, we do not say that the original conditions continue." We need to understand the Ramas distinction between continuing to work by agreement and continuing without agreement. The Rivash brings two proofs that, in his case, the original agreement continues to be intact without further stipulation. One is from the Tosefta (Kiddushin 2:9), which says that if a sale is made but the two sides disagreed about the price and made the transfer before it was worked out, whichever one is making the claim against the other loses. In other words, the negotiations were considered to have continued as they were: at an impasse. The second proof is from the Rav Hai Gaons ruling that when one continued living in a house that he rented for a period without discussing a new price, the old price continues even if prices in general went up. The Shach (333:4) points out that according to the second source, the original conditions continue even if there was silence between the two parties, and this is how he and several others rule. The Aruch Hashulchan adds that if they discussed some of the conditions of the original agreement, this is a sign that the rest of the conditions are unchanged. In this case, when the two sides discussed continuing the employment, there were matters that were discussed but notication of the ring was not one of them. Therefore, def is still bound by that paragraph in the original contract. Some understand within the opinion of the Rama that if the agreement talks about "per year," as opposed to "for a year," then the agreement continues even with silence. However, it does not seem to us that this is the intention of the Rama or the Rivash. It is also possible that the Rivashs distinction between silence and agreement is limited to a case such as the Rivashs, where there was an unusual condition (an exemption from local taxes). Based on the various aforementioned indications, pl is protected by the condition requiring two months warning for termination of the employment, either because of the Shachs opinion, because the Rama might agree in this case, or because of the Aruch Hashulchans distinction.

Note:One Should NOT derive any Halachik Conclusions from the above