The Torah, this week, presents a description of the function of the arei miklat, cities of refuge: "and a killer shall flee there - one who takes life unintentionally" (Bamidbar 35:11).  Although in today's vernacular the term rotze-ach, a murderer, denotes exclusively one who kills intentionally - bemezid, this pasuk shows us it is equally correct usage of the term to apply it to one who has killed accidentally - beshogeg.  While it may be true that such a person is not liable for capital punishment for his crime, he has still violated the prohibition of lo tizrtzach "you shall not kill" (Shmot 20:13).  It may also be said with respect to other Torah prohibitions - that one has violated them irrespective of whether the act was done beshogeg or bemezid.

Murder results in putting an end to life.  HaRav Kook zt"l was careful not to even kill plants without sufficient reason.  Cutting plants for use is obviously permissible, whether it be for purposes of eating the fruits - as Adam HaRishon was told:  "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat"  (Bereishit 2:16), or for purposes of harvesting.  In a case, however, where no benefit is derived by cutting down the plant, the Torah tells us: "do not destroy its trees by swinging an ax against them" (Bereishit 20:19).  Although this actual Torah prohibition is limited to fruit trees, one who destroys anything else without sufficient reason, has destroyed a portion of the world.  Hashem created plants with the ability to grow, He gave it life - if such a term may be used when referring to inanimate objects.  One should not and cannot destroy it without justification.

How much more serious an offense is it to kill living creatures. Following the flood we were given permission to kill animals, but only for food.  Regarding how one should view this license to slaughter animals, the Gemara relates a very interesting incident.  There was once a calf that was being lead to slaughter.  The calf went and hung its head among the folds of Rebbi's garment and began to cry.  Rebbi told it "Go; for this you were created!", the Gemara then relates that they said in Heaven: "since he does not show mercy, let suffering come upon him" (Baba Metzia 85a), whereupon Rebbi endured tremendous suffering.

Was Rebbi really expected to intervene and prevent the slaughterer from going about his work?  Certainly not!  It seems that although the act of slaughtering is permissible and is even a Mitzvah, Rebbi should have had compassion for the calf who was afraid of being slaughtered.  Rebbi's life continued to be beset by suffering until the next incident related in the Gemara.  The Gemara describes how Rebbi's maidservant was sweeping the house and happened upon a litter of baby weasels, whereupon she began to sweep them up.  Rebbi told her: "Leave them be; it is written 'and His mercy is upon all His creations' (Tehillim 145:9)".  At this point they said of him in heaven: "Since he shows mercy, let us show mercy to him".

I do not think that we should learn from the latter incident that it is forbidden to remove weasels from one's house or even that it is forbidden to kill them.  We are not required to keep all types of insects and pests in our homes, certainly not weasels that can harm or even, G-d forbid, kill an infant. In fact, I once heard quite the opposite from the Rav (HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l).  The Rav claimed that one who kills animals does not transgress the prohibition of "tzaar baalei chaim", causing needless suffering to animals.  Whether one accepts the ruling of the authorities that the prohibition of tzaar baalei chaim applies only to animals that we benefit from, or universally to all animals, the Rav claimed that killing them would not constitute tzaar baalei chaim.  The reason he offered was that the animal would eventually die, one does not cause it any greater suffering by killing it sooner.  Regardless of what lesson we are expected to derive from this Gemara, we see that Rebbi's compassion on the weasels resulted in the Heavens having compassion on him and rescinding the decree of his suffering.

The pasuk states "He shall slaughter the bull before Hashem; the sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall bring the blood" (Vayikra 1:5).  The Gemara notes that the Kohanim are only mentioned in the pasuk when instructing about the kabala, receiving of the blood.  Of the portion of the sacrificial service prior to that, namely the shechita, slaughtering, the Gemara states: "Slaughter (of sacrifices) by a non-Kohen is valid" (Berachot 31b).  Although we once discussed in a shiur, whether or not a non-Kohen may also perform the slaughtering for sacrifices brought on Shabbat, it is certainly permissible for him to do so on weekdays.

The Zohar adds that not only is it permissible for a non-Kohen to slaughter the animals being brought as sacrifices, it is actually preferable (with the one exception of Yom Kippur where it is preferable to have the Kohen Gadol do the slaughtering).  The Zohar explains that although slaughtering is permitted, it involves taking a life - an act inappropriate for a Kohen.

This Zohar requires a deeper explanation.  Is this "killing" not a Torah commandment? Even the slaughter of chullin, animals not used for holy purposes, is a Mitzvah upon which a bracha is recited.  How much more so should the slaughtering of animals with the intent of offering them as sacrifices be deemed praiseworthy and not mere "killing"?  One could even say that it is a merit for the animal to be brought as a sacrifice.  Despite all this, the Zohar tells us that killing and Kehuna do not go hand in hand.

If one is permitted to use such terminology when referring to the Zohar, we can say that this approach is consistent with an issue found elsewhere in the Zohar.  When revealing to us the identity of the man Pinchas killed, the Torah states: "The name of the slain Israelite man who was slain with the Midianites was Zimri son of Salu" (Bamidbar 25:14).  The Zohar points out that this pasuk would have been a fitting way to describe the identity of a body discovered on the road with the identity of the killer unknown.  After the Torah had just finished detailing for us how Pinchas rose up and killed a Jewish man, should the Torah rather not simply have said: "the name of the slain Israelite man who was killed by Pinchas was Zimri", why is Zimri simply referred to as the "one who was killed" - we know the identity of his killer?  The Zohar explains that Pinchas was rewarded with the Kehuna for his actions.  It would have been inappropriate for the Torah to mention Pinchas' killing of Zimri in the same breath as his being rewarded with the Kehuna.  As we said, killing and the Kehuna do not go hand in hand.

In this case, the killing of Zimri brought great salvation to the Jewish nation: "Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen, turned back My wrath from upon the Children of Israel, when he zealously avenged Me among them, so I did not consume the Children of Israel in My vengeance" (Bamidbar 25:11).  Had Pinchas not killed Zimri, perhaps, G-d forbid, the entire Jewish nation would have been lost!  Even though this was a tremendous deed performed by Pinchas, it cannot be mentioned together with the Kehuna.

The Torah similarly describes the identity of the woman killed by Pinchas:  "and the name of the slain Midianite woman"  (Bamidbar 25:15).  The Torah even omitted reference to Pinchas when describing the killing of a non-Jew who caused the nation to sin.  It is not appropriate to mention any sort of killing, whether it be that of a Jew, non-Jew, or even an animal in the same breath as the Kehuna.

We see how far we must distance ourselves from spilling blood.  The Jewish people are proud of what Pinchas did, the slaughtering of animals for sacrifices is a Torah commandment, yet we must realize that it does involve spilling blood.  One perhaps can say that this spilling of blood is dechuya and not hutra.  Blood is only spilled when strictly necessary, as in the above cases, it is not something that should be taken lightly.

Today we have reached a horrific state where acts of murder are taken lightly.  The Gemara tells us that during the times of the Beit Hamikdash a similar situation existed where murder became acceptable, in fact this resulted in the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash!  We must not allow a situation where life is cheap.  In today's secular society the act of abortion is viewed as being totally permissible.  The woman is "master over her body" and she alone may decide whether or not to abort.  Even if one were to claim that abortion is technically not murder (a non-Jew is punishable by death for this act, whereas a Jew does not receive capital punishment), there is no license to cut off a soul from this world.  From one perspective, one may view abortion as the most absolute form of murder, even more so than the killing of a living person.  A murderer takes away the victim's future, his past cannot be taken away.  Assuming we are each given only one hundred twenty years of life, one who murders a thirty year old person has not taken away more than ninety years of his life.  Aborting a fetus means taking away the entire one hundred twenty years of life.  He has no future as well as no past.

This idea can apply to contraception as well.  When Pharaoh decreed that all sons born be cast into the river, Amram and Yocheved separated in order not to have any more children.  Miriam, their daughter, chastised them by saying: "Your decree is more severe than Pharaoh's, because Pharaoh decreed only against the males, whereas you have decreed against the males and females.  Pharaoh only decreed concerning this world, whereas you have decreed concerning this world and the world to come" (Sotah 12a).  Miriam was in effect telling her father that preventing pregnancy, which he felt was the right thing to do under the circumstances, was worse than Pharaoh's decree of throwing all males born into the river.  Aborting as well as preventing pregnancies, based on what Miriam said, takes away the unborn child's share not only from this world but from the next world as well, making this, as we have said - a "total murder" - has become accepted.

We need to wake up and realize how terrible this is - taking a life.  Any creation of Hashem is precious - how much more so a Jewish life that had the potential to spend time engrossed in learning Torah and performing Mitzvot.  In addition, when Kayin killed Hevel, the Torah states "The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground" (Bereishit 4:10).  The Mishna notes that the pasuk uses the plural form of blood dmei, rather than the singular dam.  The Mishna explains that this refers to "the blood and the blood of his descendants" (Sanhedrin 37a).  Hevel did not merit having descendants, the potential that had existed was wiped out.  Imagine, had he had children, how many billions of Hevel's descendants there would be walking around today.  The only reason they do not exist is that Kayin killed him.  For every fetus aborted, all of his descendants are aborted too.  Chazal tell us "For this reason man was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, the pasuk views it as if he destroyed a complete world" (ibid.), because from one person can descend millions of people.  Any loss is viewed as billions of losses, yet the abortion issue is taken very lightly.

Unintentional killing has also become widespread. Although one cannot plan an accidental killing, there are ways it can be avoided. People think nothing of violating traffic laws - this applies to the drivers as well as the pedestrians.  I do not wish to discuss the issue of whether "the law of the land is law" applies here. The issue is irrelevant, we are not dealing with an issue that was voted on in the Knesset and one opinion was the majority and thus became law. Speed limits are there for the purpose of avoiding potential danger and therefore must be adhered to.  These speed limits take into account the drivers on your side of the street, oncoming traffic, as well as the pedestrians. Not following these laws can result in innocent blood being spilled.

We are commanded "But you shall greatly beware for your life" (Devarim 4:15).  One who violates traffic laws does not simply violate, he is transgressing a Torah prohibition.  Even more so, we are told "a danger is treated more stringently than a prohibition" (Chullin 10a).  From this perspective it is worse to violate traffic laws than to drive on Shabbat!  It is true that in the secular world, where they drive on Shabbat anyway, this statement is meaningless, but at least for us this should indicate the seriousness of the matter.  From the perspective of "one who is an apostate regarding the Shabbat is as if he is an apostate for the entire Torah", it is worse to drive on Shabbat, yet from the perspective of chamira sakanta meisura it is worse to drive in a reckless manner than to drive on the Shabbat.  We cannot allow ourselves to become accustomed to the status quo.  We need to repent and change our ways - we need to wake up our own acquaintances and anyone else willing to listen - about the sanctity of life.

The Gemara instructs us: "One must not join company with an 'am haaretz' on the road, because it is said 'for that (the Torah) is your life, and the length of your days' (Devarim 30:20), if he has no care for his own life, how much more so for the life of his companions!" (Pesachim 49b).  The life of a Jew is defined by the study of Torah, if he does not learn and thus demonstrates that he does not care for his own life - his eternal life, why should we expect him to care for the lives of others?  We are not dealing with one who is ignorant because he was raised in Russia, or a similar atmosphere where people did not learn.  The Gemara is telling us that it is not wise to accompany one who intentionally does not study Torah.  Such a person has demonstrated a lack of concern for what is important in life and is therefore more liable to drive in a reckless fashion.  From his perspective why should he not?  After all life is not that important, the worst that could happen is that he will leave this world and move on to the next world (he does not realize that he may end up in Gehinom rather than the next world - it does not really matter for life is not that important and whatever happens he will just move on to another stage).

Chazal tell us "When two sit together and no words of Torah are spoken between them, this is a session of the jokers, as it is written 'Nor sat he in the seat of the jokers' (Tehillim 1:1)" (Pirkei Avot 3:2).  The Mishna does not tell us that they are wasting time by simply sitting around telling jokes.  Why is the lack of divrei Torah a moshav leitzim, perhaps they are discussing the weather or the upcoming elections.  I am not referring to discussions which are of necessity, it is even hard to believe that engaging in this type of conversation when unnecessary constitutes a "moshav leitzim".  Discussing the political situation is a far cry from telling jokes, I would say it is a very sad state of affairs.

The term moshav leitzim is used when referring to people who mitlotzetz, belittle - scorn, the value of time.  It is not the jokes about Clinton or anyone else that define one as a letz, but the fact that precious time is not taken seriously.  Our life is made up of only one hundred twenty years of time, the wasting of time is the wasting of a portion of life.  Wasting time that could have been spent in the study of Torah means belittling the value of the Torah as well, G-d forbid.  One who values learning Torah and observing Mitzvot and the reward awaiting one who so spends his time, would rather spend his time doing so.

This can be compared to one who finds a sack full of precious pearls.  The finder opens the sack and says to himself that he already has this type of glass at home.  The Torah describes one who does not value time spent in the study of Torah: "For he scorned the word of Hashem and broke His commandment, that person will surely be cut off" (Bamidbar 15:31).  The double language "hikaret tikaret", the Gemara explains, means that he will be cut off in this world and the next world.  Wasting precious time is worse than eating chametz on Pesach and other sins that are punishable by karet.  One who eats chametz on Pesach will receive karet from this world but will still have a share in the next world, whereas one who wastes precious time that could have been used for Torah study forfeits his share in this world and the next world.

It is hard to demand of the secular world that they value life.  The Torah instructs us to value all creation for they are creations of Hashem.  If what makes man unique is that he was created "betzelem Elokim" "in the image of Hashem" (Bereishit 1:27), it stands to reason that whoever does not believe in Hashem cannot value man.  In the secular world they speak of "betzelem adam", in the image of man - the "image" is a statue or sculpture, this is idol worship, what value does an idol have?  Whoever does not believe in G-dliness cannot understand what it means to be created in the image of G-d.  At least in our circles we must understand what it means to be created in the image of Hashem, and how valuable life is, the eternal life of the next world.  Losing this world results in losing the next world for one who has left this world can no longer learn and perform Mitzvot.

Unfortunately, not only are abortions and accidental killings rampant, but intentional murder has also become very commonplace.  Reading the newspapers is certainly a waste of time, but one who does read them will find that they are filled with stories of a person who killed his wife, some other relative, or even a non-relative.  Hardly a day goes by without a story of a murder bemezid, how low have we sunk!

When Stavsky was accused by the British of killing Arlozorov, HaRav Kook stated that he was willing to testify on his behalf that it is impossible for a Jew to kill.  I am not sure if Rav Kook would be willing to make such a claim today - even if he were to do so, the British would laugh in his face.  Can we really claim that a Jew cannot murder when the papers are filled with such stories?  It may be true that many of the murderers are only considered Jews because it says so on their teudat zehut (Israeli identity card), but much to our chagrin many of the murders are committed by those who are halachically Jewish as well.

These tragedies all occur as a result of influences from the outside world - living amongst non-Jews.  Today, the notion of kibbutz galuyot, ingathering of all the exiles to the land of Israel, is interpreted to mean bringing in the exiles from all over the world.  This means bringing into our midst the Russians, Vietnamese, etc. and demanding that a Neeman commission be set up to convert them and make us all into one nation.  This can have a very negative influence on our society, the Jewish nations need a tikkun to put an end to this.

We certainly need a tikkun for sinat chinam, baseless hatred - which was the reason for the destruction of the second Beit Hamikdash. Unfortunately, the three cardinal sins whose transgression resulted in the destruction of the first Beit Hamikdash are also widespread among us.  The entire secular education can be referred to as Avoda Zara.  This education can be referred to as the ultimate in Avoda Zara.  The reason being is that one who worships Avoda Zara, although denying the last twelve principles of faith, accepts the first one that there is a ruler in this world.  Denying everything, including this first principle of faith, is the worst Avoda Zara possible.  Putting it differently, we can explain that the average person who worships Avoda Zara believes there are three or perhaps some other number of powers that control the world.  A total apostate believes that a dog is a separate power, as is a cat, a mouse, and everything else.  His Avoda Zara, therefore, is the ultimate one for there is no limit to the things he worships.  This type of education, one that preaches the denial of the existence of Hashem, unfortunately is very commonplace.

Problems associated with the second sin responsible for the destruction of the first Beit Hamikdash, gilui arayot, are also rampant. In secular society, adherence to the prohibitions associated with a Nidda are non-existent.  Even among the religious, prohibitions associated with gilui arayot are taken lightly.  They may not be involved in gilui arayot in the strict sense of the word, yet they are not careful to distance themselves from forbidden relations.  The prohibition of yichud, a man being alone with a woman, is not taken seriously.  In Chutz la'aretz the rate of intermarriage has reached sky-high proportions and also requires a serious tikkun.  We have already discussed the sin of shfichut damim, spilling of blood.

In America they have created another stumbling block.  A Beit Din has been created for the purpose of permitting agunot (a woman technically married and thus cannot marry anyone else, yet not married in practice - either due to her husband's refusal to grant her a get, a halachically recognized divorce, or his being missing and no evidence available as to whether he is alive or dead) to remarry.  This Beit Din has discovered a way to release these women from their situation.  They simply asked her had she known that she was destined to be an aguna would she have agreed to the marriage in the first place.  If the answer is "no" then we must say that the marriage was performed under false pretenses and thus is as if it never took place.  After performing some sort of hatarat nedarim, annulling of vows, they now declare that this woman is free to remarry.

This is absolutely terrible!  Do they really believe that Chazal, the Rishonim, and Achronim were not wise enough to come up with this solution?  Do they believe all the great Rabbis of bygone times simply avoided this issue?  Today they are all much wiser and have finally uncovered a solution!  Even here in Yerushalayim there was once an Orthodox Rabbi who also found a new way to permit agunot to remarry.  He would write a get for women whose husband was missing and hand it to them claiming that it was halachichally valid, based on the Gemara's rule of zachin le-adam shelo befanav "one may act for a person in his absence to his advantage" (Ketubot 11a).  The way I understand it, he came to this conclusion by virtue of the fact that today it is considered an advantage for a man to divorce his wife!, thus he was able to act in the place of the husband.

There is still a potential problem with this.  The Ktzot Hachoshen points out that the Gemara specifically states zachin le-adam, one may act for a person, and not zachin me-adam, one may act from a person (a get is not being given to the husband but from the husband, thus according to the Ktzot Hachoshen zachin le-adam shelo befanav would not be applicable here).  Irrespective of whether or not one accepts this view of the Ktzot Hachoshen, who decided that it is an advantage for a man to divorce his wife?  All of this nonsense they have made up results in adultery in the strict sense of the word.

In order for these days of Bein Hamezarim to become days of joy, we need a tikkun for Avoda Zara, gilui arayot, shfichut damim, and sinat chinam.  All we have left is our Torah.  We must understand the seriousness of these matters - even avizraihu, ancillary sins relating to Avoda Zara, come under the category of yehareg ve-al yaavor, one should rather die than transgress these sins.  Today all this is taken very lightly.  The newspapers, even a recent edition of one of the religious ones, are filled with articles comparing the three religions.  Can one really discuss Judaism, the nonsensical religion of Islam, and the Avoda Zara of Christianity in one breath?

We must realize the seriousness of transgressing the ancillary acts associated with gilui arayot and shfichut damim as well.  We have a major weapon used in a form of shfichut damim available to us at all times - not a gun, not a car but our mouth.  The Gemara tells us: "Anyone who makes his friend's face turn white in public it is if he has spilled blood" (Baba Metzia 58b).  According to many authorities, one should rather die than embarrass another in public, as we read in the Torah of Tamar's willingness to get burned in a furnace rather than embarrass Yehuda.  The Gemara describes to us how Mar Ukva and his wife actually entered a furnace rather than embarrass the poor man they regularly gave charity to (Ketubot 67b).  Many Rishonim rule that the halacha requires one to die rather than embarrassing another in public.  This is yet another example of a serious issue we take lightly, it takes little for us to call our fellow man an idiot or all kinds of other terrible names.  We must be careful to correct our violations of even these ancillary forms of Avoda Zara, gilui arayot, shfichut damim, and certainly sinat chinam.

We can certainly apply the idea of mida keneged mida "measure for measure" (Shabbat 105b).  If murder and the other sins mentioned bring about the destruction, then certainly the saving of lives can bring the redemption.  What is an ancillary form of saving a life?  Giving charity!  the Gemara tells us "charity is great, because it brings the redemption closer, as it is stated 'so said Hashem, keep justice and do charity, for My salvation is near to come, and My charity to be revealed' (Yeshayahu 56:1)" (Baba Batra 10a).  We must be careful in this area, there are times when giving charity is a true saving of a life.  Certainly in the merit of all these things the redemption will come sooner.  In the merit of love of our fellow Jews and belief in Hashem we will correct all these sins and truly merit. Amen.