Biography: Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
Har Herzl (Mount Herzl) is amountain in the Jerusalem Forestin the western part of Jerusalem,between the neighbourhoods of EinKerem, Beit haKerem, Bayit v'Ganand Yefeh Nof. It rises more than800 metres above sea level, and hasbeen home to the graves of themodern State of Israel's leaderssince August 17, 1949, when Theodor Herzl's remains were re-interred there from Vienna. Thisfulfilled Herzl's dying wish, asrecorded in his will, "I wish to beburied in a metal coffin next to my father, and to remain there until the Jewish people will transfer my remains to Eretz Israel. The coffinsof my father, my sister Pauline, andof my close relatives who will havedied until then will also betransferred there."In 1954, excavations revealed a Jewish burial cave from the time of the second Beit haMikdash on thegrounds of the mountain; today,that burial cave is flanked by amemorial for soldiers whose burialsites are unknown. The mountainalso houses the graves of those whofought to establish the Jewish State,leaders of the military, the policeforce and the Knesset. Themountain also hosts a memorial forvictims of terror attacks, and forthose who perished on their way toIsrael. Yad vaShem is nearby, as isIsrael's National Military Cemetery.National ceremoniescommemorating
Israel’s Memorial Day for fallen
soldiers and victims of terror, areheld at Har Herzl. Two of Israel's best-known PrimeMinisters chose other burial placesfor themselves: David Ben Gurion isburied near his home in Sde Boker,and Menachem Begin asked to beburied next to his wife on HarhaZeitim (Mount of Olives).An interactive map of Har Herzl isavailable at http://bit.ly/IRU8yM.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Porush was thefounder of the Shaarei Chesedneighbourhood of Jerusalem; his son,Rabbi Chaim Yehudah Leib Auerbach,founded and served as Rosh Yeshiva of the Shaar haShomayim Yeshiva,dedicated to study of Kabbalah. RabbiChaim Leib's son, Rabbi Shlomo ZalmanAuerbach
commonly known as just"Rav Shlomo Zalman"
was the firstchild born in Shaarei Chesed, in 1910.Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wasknown for his diligent Torah study.When he was about eleven years old, thefirst automobile arrived in hisneighbourhood. While all of the otherschoolchildren ran out of the classroomto see the car, Rav Shlomo Zalmanremained in his seat, absorbed in hisstudies. (
And From Jerusalem, His Word
by Rabbi Chanoch Teller, pg. 69)Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wasalso known for his refined character.Even in his older years he would rise toprovide women with a seat on a bus,and he was careful to respect the dignity of all human beings.While in Yeshiva, Rav Shlomo Zalmanbecame a top student of Rav IssurZalman Meltzer, and he later learned inthe kollel of Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank. Atthe age of 24, Rav Shlomo Zalmanpublished a sefer discussing halachicissues in the use of electricity. This textreceived approbation from Rav ChaimOzer Grodzinski, a leading sage of thetime. Rav Shlomo Zalman is also well-known for his rulings on medicalhalacha, and for his rulings on the lawsof Shabbat. These rulings werepublished by Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirthin
Shemirat Shabbat K’Hilchatah
, and by Rabbi Dr. Abraham S. Abraham in
Many of Rav Shlomo Zalman’s sons
serve as Rabbis in Israel, and hisdaughter Rachel is married to RabbiZalman Nechemiah Goldberg, a leadinghalachic authority in Israel. It isestimated that 300,000 people attendedRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's funeralin 1995; aish.com labels it "the largestfuneral in Israel since mishnaic times."
Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
[Translator’s note: Shemot 21:15 says that a
child who strikes a parent is liable.Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 elaborates thatthe child must draw blood to be liable.] There is another great support to permit
[treating one’s parent] in the Minchat
Chinuch's statement (Mitzvah 48): "Thegemara asks, 'May a child let blood for aparent?' But that is when the blood-lettingis
against the parent’s will
. So too, thetalmudic sages who did not let theirchildren remove a splinter because perhapsthe child would make a wound, wereconcerned that it would be against theparent's will. However, if the parent forgiveshis honour and commands the child to doso, then the child is not liable, and does nottransgress this prohibition at all. So too, in
wounding one’s friend."
In a footnote, Rabbi Auerbach adds
: TheMinchat Chinuch writes, "Even though I didnot find this explicitly written, nonethelesslogic indicates this, and in my humbleopinion this is clear." Nevertheless, it has
been pointed out to me that the She’iltot
(end of 60) writes regarding the principle of "A father who waives his honour, hishonour is waived" that this is for honour,but
for hitting and cursing. Haameik
She’eilah [R’ Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin]
brings support for this, and then adds,"Really, we do not need these proofs otherthan to demonstrate that forgiving one'shonour does not permit disgrace. Forcursing or hitting, it is obvious [that thefather cannot waive it]; even one who curseshimself violates a prohibition." Still, it isplausible that if the father wanted the blood-letting or splinter removal, and this was hiswill, then it would not be within the biblicalcategory of striking one's parent.]In my humble opinion, there is great proof for the words of the Minchat Chinuch, since
the command to not hit one’s parents is
derived from the same verse as thecommand to not hit anyone, and regarding
hitting another person with that person’s
permission, the law is that if the friend says"Hit me on the condition that you will beexempt" then the hitter is exempt.(Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 421:12)Similarly, the Rambam writes that hitting afriend is liable only when it is "in the form of
disgrace." (Hilchot Chovel U’Mazik 5:1) If so,
then the same rule should apply when one
R’ Mordechai Torczyner
Torah in Translation
May a DoctorTreat Her Parent?
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman AuerbachMinchat Shlomo 1:32
Translated by Yair Manas
wounds his parents medically, evenunnecessarily, and the child receivespermission even for mistakes. We need
not worry about a mistake…
Although all other halachic authoritiesdid not distinguish between wounding aparent with and without permission, thedistinction is logical, and we can attachthis rationale [to other rationales] toallow [a child to treat his parent].