Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Vayakhel/Pekudei – Righteous Collateral

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

Why is the Tabernacle called the Mishkan in Hebrew? In this week’s double portion of Vayakhel and Pikudei it discusses the actual building of the Mishkan, it’s vessels and the priestly garments, whereas the portions of Teruma and Tetzave described the blueprints. In aShemos Rabba (50:2) it alludes to the fact that Mishkan means “the dwelling place of Hashem;” Shachen in Hebrew means dwell. However, the Medrish Tanchuma (9) based on the pasuk “He made the planks for the Mishkan of acacia wood, standing erect,” (Shemos 36:20) it says that mishkan means collateral from the Hebrew word mashkon. The Medrish asks, “What does the pasuk mean when it says, ‘for the Mishkan?’ For if the sinners amongst the Jews are liable then the Mishkan can be used as their own collateral to [atone] for them. Moshe said, ‘Master of the World, when they will have no Mishkan or Beis Hamikdash what will be with them?’ He said back to him, ‘I will take the righteous from amongst them, and they will act as collateral for [their sins]. And so, it says ‘And He killed those that were pleasing to His eye’ (Eichah 2:4). This refers to the righteous, that is why it writes, ‘He made the planks for the Mishkan’.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Mishkan and Beis Mikdash were factories for those who sinned and needed an atonement to fix their sins through repentance. The sacrificial offerings were like a collateral for the sinner to ensure they do teshuva (repent), for they themselves really deserve to die for rebelling against the king. Now that the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash are gone, why is the slaying of righteous people in its place?
The Avraham Ezkor on this medrish, by Rav Avraham Palagi, gives an answer: “It is possible to say that they called the righteous ‘pleasing to the eyes’ just as it is said by Achav with the King of Aram ‘And it was all that was pleasing in your eyes’ which referred to a Sefer Torah (Torah scroll). This could be understood based on what I (Rav Palagi) wrote in the kuntress, ‘Barech es Avraham,’ Sidra Masei, that a talmid chacham, a sage is the same as a sefer Torah; so how is it permissible to take it as part of the debt of the Jews? And see there the answer that I had written. Which is that it hints here that there were amongst them completely righteous and great scholars because their sins had increased in such great proportions that He took a sefer Torah in order to get paid back for their debts, that is what taking collateral from amongst them means, not all of them but taking their choicest.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Avraham Ezkor compares the sages and the righteous to a sefer Torah. Because the Jews sinned, and they were in need of atonement, Hashem took from them a walking living Sefer Torah as a message that they must change and repent.

But why does Hashem kill His most precious and beloved people? Why not burn a sefer Torah instead? In fact, the Navi writes in Yechezkel, “but for the wicked to repent of his way so that he may live” (Yechekel 33:11). Certainly, if Hashem desires the wicked to live, assuming they repent, all the more so Hashem should desire the life of the righteous?

This, Chaza”l seems to be a clear proof to the concept of hiskatnus hadoros,  the diminishing of the generations. Back in the day, in the times of the Mishkan and even afterwards by the Beis Hamikdash, with all the miracles and wonders that took place, when someone sinned which was much less back then, all they needed to help them repent was to bring a sacrifice on the alter. That shocked them into realizing this should be me on the alter but Hashem in His great mercy allowed me to bring an animal offering instead therefore I should fully repent and fix my wayward ways. As time went on, and the generations spiritually dwindled, their relationship with Hashem and their Fear of Heaven diminished to the point that both Batei Hamikdash were destroyed centuries after the Mishkan was dismantled and buried. The impression needed to charge them to repent is now much greater, and therefore it would seem that simply the destruction of a sefer Torah, as horrifying as it is, would not be enough to instill fear into them and arouse them to repent. Rather, the death of a beloved leader and role model to the Jewish people, a Holy Neshama, the loss of a righteous soul, is the impact needed to hopefully stir us to repent and change our ways.

This is how far gone we have travelled from Hashem and what Hashem must do to bring us back. May we be inspired to complete teshuva (repentance) which will lead to our Final Redemption speedily in our days.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #223

Question: Why does the logic of zeh vizeh gorem help for if salt was added onto a salted dish on the fire but the logic would not help to allow one to read from a fire that was lit by a non-Jew for a Jew on Shabbos right before his light went out?

 Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (318:9:73) brings down that there is an argument whether adding salt in a kli rishon off the flame is considered cooking on Shabbos, but definitely adding salt onto a pot of food on the flame is forbidden, either way it is permissible to eat the food because the salt is nullified on top of the food. But this is only because the food that was salted before Shabbos because both the salt that was put on permissibly before Shabbos and the salt that was put into the pot prohibitively on Shabbos, i.e., zeh vizeh gorem, one can eat it.

 B. If a person has a candle and because the light is so weak, he can’t read and he transgressed and asked a non-Jew to light a candle for him, it says earlier in the Mishna Berura (276:4:32) that it is forbidden to read from that light.

 Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (Dirshu 81) explains that only in regards to salt, that after salt is put on the food it melts and is not recognizable, the Rabbis permitted eating it because zeh vizeh gorem but by the candles, where the added light is recognizable by all, therefore it forbidden to benefit from it.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 halachos 14, 15

Dear Chevra,

Thursday we officially unofficially finished Sefer Chofetz Chaim but there is an appendix (addendum) in the end which will take another few weeks. But we are almost there!!

Halacha 14: If someone does something not nice to someone else, like a prank, and he doesn’t know who did it. If let say Reuvain goes over to Shimon, thinking Shimon did it to him and asked who pranked me? Shimon, even if he suspects that Reuvain thinks he’s the culprit still cannot say the name of who did, even if he saw exactly what happened, unless it’s a situation which meets the criteria and conditions to let him know. Rather Shimon should just say “I didn’t do it.” However, let say there was a vote against a person in a city council meeting ir a case like this of a vote and the majority of the vote went against that person and that person asked someone on the city council who voted against him. The councilman can’t say “I don’t know”, or “I voted on your favor,” because it’s more likely he will find out who actually ruled against him. It is best just to say “This is an official matter that can’t be divulged to anyone.” Or the like.

Halacha 15: A business scenario: Let’s say a merchant comes to town with his good and Chaim saw a product he wanted and told the merchant he’ll be back with the money. In the meantime, many other people come to look at the merchandise and someone buys the product that was put on the side for Chaim. The buyer pushed and urged the merchant very much, in a very annoying manner possibly, to sell him the product and the merchant finally acquiesced. Even though the buyer might be in the wrong since it’s a prohibition called chamas or extortion, which is forcefully buying something against the will or at least the complete will, of the seller, though it is still a valid sale if you “convinced” him to sell it and made a valid acquisition on the item, nevertheless, when Chaim goes back to the merchant with his money and asks for the product he set on the side. The merchant can’t tell Chaim the name of the buyer to Chaim and say this guy came and forced me to sell him the product. He threw the money at me, took the item and ran off, and I didn’t want to fight with him. This is considered outright rechilus because the sale is done and the merchant is only instilling hatred into Chaim’s heart. What’s even worse is that many times the buyer didn’t even apply so much pressure on the merchant but then he sold it to him anyways, either because the merchant knows the buyer, or sees he wanted to buy more stuff, or was willing to pay more for the item, or for whatever reason and the merchant does not care, he just wants his money. So when Chaim comes back and the merchant doesn’t want the blame he just blames the buyer that he was forced to sell it. This isn’t just rechilus, but it’s a lie so it is motzi shem ra. The same is true if the buyer didn’t pay for the item yet but just took it and said he’ll pay for it later or there was an agreement made to pay in installments later, which means the condition is the acquisition will take place retroactively, still the point being as soon as he picked it up or pulled it, making some kind of acquisition then it’s too late, it is his and the deal is done so the merchant can’t say who he sold it to. Even if the merchant blames it all on himself, apologizes, but says who he sold it to, still Chaim will hate him so he can’t say. All the merchandise can say is, I sold it to someone else by accident.

The Chofetz Chaim concludes, “know, that all that we wrote in this book about how careful one must be from the sin of lashon hara, only applies when speaking about a person who is a part of ‘your nation’. But those people who deny the Torah of Hashem, even one letter, and those that make fun of the words of the rabbis, it’s a mitzvah to publicize their false views before everybody, and to denigrate them, so that people won’t learn from their bad deeds. We have finished the rules regarding the prohibitions if lashon hara and rechilus.”

Posted on

Ki Sisa – Traumatic Fear


 In this week’s Torah portion of Ki Sisa we have the infamous episode of the sin of the golden calf and Aharon’s involvement. What was going through his mind, what exactly did he do, and how much was he really involved? 
The medrish Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer (45) paints a picture of what enfolded: “Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai said that when Hashem revealed Himself to Moshe from within the bush and sent him to Egypt, Moshe said before Hashem, ‘Master of the World swear to me that whatever I ask of You to do, You shall do, so that I won’t say something to Pharaoh, You won’t do it, and he will kill me.’ He swore to him that whatever request he makes he will fulfill except for two things: going into The Land, and not dying…
When the Jews accepted the commandments, after 40 days they forgot their G-D. They said to Aharon, the Egyptians use to carry their god, serve it and sing before it and they saw it in front of their eyes. Make us a god like the god of the Egyptians etc. They went to the friends of Moshe, Aharon, and Chur, the son of their sister (Miriam)…
Since Chur (on his father’s side) was from the tribe of Yehuda, and was one of the leaders of the generation, he started rebuking the Jews with harsh words. The lower echelon of Jewish society stood up against him and murdered him. Aharon saw that Chur was murdered and he built an alter as it says, ‘And Aharon saw’. What did he see? That Chur, the son of his sister was murdered, and he built an alter as it says, ‘And he built an alter.’ Aharon judged a judgment by himself and said, ‘If I tell them to give me gold and silver, immediately they will bring it, rather I will tell them to give me the earrings of your wives and children and then the whole plan will be spoiled’, as it says, ‘And Aharon told them to take off etc.’ The women heard this, did not want to, and didn’t accept to give the earrings to their husbands. They said we don’t want to be involved in making such a decrepit and disgusting thing that has no power to save us. (The Be’ur Maspik [in some editions it is called Bayis Chadash] explains ‘that what was going through Aharon’s mind was that women and children are more protective of their jewelry and will refuse to give them up, and in the meantime Moshe will come down and the whole situation will dissipate.’ In fact the women were against the whole plan of their husbands.) Hashem rewarded them with a reward in this world that they observe Rosh Chodesh more than men do (by not doing strenuous work, like laundry, on the new month). They also got reward in the World to Come in that they would be resurrected (the Mishna in perek Chelek of Sanhedrin lists the men of the generation in the desert as those that have no share in the World to Come.) The men saw that their wives were not listening to them to give the earrings to their husbands. What did they do? At that time they wore earrings just like Egyptians or Arabs did, they took theirs off and gave them to Aharon… Aharon found amongst all the jewelry a head band of gold which had Hashem’s Holy name written on it and also a picture of a calf inscribed in it. That was the only thing he threw into the pot of fire. As it says, ‘they have gave to me’ ‘and I threw them into the fire’ it does not say after that but ‘I threw it into the fire.’ (Assumingly, with something so holy, Aharon was assuming or hoping that nothing wrong will come out from it.) The calf came out mooing and the Jews saw this. Rebbe Yehuda says Samel (Satan) entered into it and started moving to seduce the Jews… the Jews saw it and started to kiss it, bow down and sacrifice to it.”

The rest of the Medrish goes on to say that Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu that the Jewish people forgot His limitless power and all the wonders He did for them in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and therefore they are not My people anymore but they are yours to deal with. Moshe took the tablets of the Ten Commandments which were carved out by Hashem and the Holy letters were carrying the tablets on their own. When Moshe came Towards the bottom of the mountain the letters flew off the tablets and the tablets became too heavy for Moshe to carry so he dropped them to the bottom of the mountain. He then went over to Aharon, seeing what was going on, and asked him, ‘What did you do to this nation? You uncovered them like an adulterous woman that was caught!’ Aharon said back to Moshe, ‘I saw what they did to Chur and I was very much afraid!’ Moshe found that the princes of each tribe and the entire tribe of Levi had no involvement in the golden calf. He took the golden calf, and crushed and burned it to smithereens. He took the ashes, mixed them in water, and forced the Jews to drink it. Whoever had gold lips after they drank showed that they kissed the idol with all their heart, so Moshe ordered the Leviim to kill them. Around 3000 people give or take were executed. Then Hashem sent down destructive angels to wipe out the entire nation and Moshe Rabbeinu had to pray, using the 13 attributes of mercy, in order to save the nation from destruction. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
If not for Aharon “playing along” with the heathens, none of this would have happened. Aharon was a rodef shalom, someone who ran after peace, always dealing with people and their plights and skirmishes. He knew how to talk in a convincing way to make sure everything worked out and was peaceful at the end of the day. Why couldn’t he do the same in this circumstance? Nicely tell them this is inappropriate and the wrong thing to do. Granted, his nephew, Chur, was just slaughtered by these people, but he spoke quite harshly to them. Aharon, the great tzadik, beloved by all, and leader that he was, should have been able to talk them out of it instead of using subterfuge, which didn’t work. How could it be that he didn’t think that even if the women and children refused, the men would act fast and donate their own jewelry to the cause?

Yet the Beur Hamaspik says that Aharon actually saw Chur murdered in cold blood in front of his eyes, as we see at the end of the pasuk. This appears to mean that what Aharon was doing was purely for the sake of Heaven, as he said, “a holiday for Hashem there shall be etc.” That is why the medrish was wondering what he actually saw. And therefore the medrish taught that the pasuk was bringing a defense for Aharon. What did he see to listen to them to make the golden calf? He saw Chur slaughtered before his very eyes and he was afraid lest they do to him what they did to Chur.

We can infer from this medrish and the comments the Be’ur Maspik makes on this medrish that if Aharon would not have seen his nephew, Chur, viciously slaughtered in  front of him, then Aharon would have stealthily convinced them to not make the golden calf, rather than going along with their idea with a trick which he hoped would delay the making.

We see from here the impact seeing a traumatizing experience can do to even the greatest of people and the ramifications it has on the masses. Aharon wasn’t held responsible for anything that he did or resulted because he wasn’t trying to do anything wrong and his intent was purely for the sake of Hashem to try to divert the evil plans from coming into fruition but if not for the impact of what he saw he could have made better choices which would have resulted in the sin of the golden calf never happening and its ramifications would never have reverberated until this very day.

Posted on

Tetzave – Official Business


 This week’s Torah portion of Tetzave discusses the priestly garments. One of the garments of the Kohen Gadol, (the high priest) was the me’il (the robe), which had pomegranates, tassels, and bells on the bottom. The Torah states, “It must be on Aharon in order to minister. Its sound shall be heard when he enters the Sanctuary before Hashem and when he leaves, so that he not die” (Shemos 28:35).
Rabbeinu Bachye brings a few interpretations of what “Its (his) sound shall be heard when he enters the Sanctuary ” refers to. The first is that it refers to the voice of Aharon, for when he came to the Sanctuary wearing the eight garments, with this tactic, his voice would be heard and his prayers accepted. Included in “its sound” is the sound of the robe with the noise from the bells. This is a moral lesson, (mussar haskel) and the Torah is teaching man proper manners, (derech eretz) for one who wants to enter before the king, he must first knock at the entrance of the throne room, so that he won’t just suddenly enter. The kingdoms on earth are like the kingdom in Heaven, for anyone who enters the throne room of the king suddenly deserves to be executed, as a stratagem of the kingdom. We see this written by King Achashveirosh, ‘Who is not summoned, his law is one- to be put to death’ (Esther 4:11).

Another reason is to make known that the Kohen Gadol wanted to enter. Even though everything is revealed and known to the Shechina (Holy Presence), also the angels, holy ministers before Him, nothing is hidden from them. The reason [for the bells] were so that the angels wouldn’t bump into him, which would have happened if he had walked in suddenly. The bells were not to introduce a new matter to the Shechina (Hashem’s Holy Presence), nor to the angels who were there, rather the matter obviously included great purposes, for it was a warning to the Angel’s to leave their positions to make room for the loved one of the King, for the King’s honor, so that he can enter and serve Him alone.

Furthermore, so that the kohen would not get hurt if he entered suddenly. With this sign they (the angels) would get out of his way and give the servant of The King room. When he left [the bells] were also an announcement, as if the kohen called them back to be ministering in front of Him as they were originally doing because his service had ended and now, he is leaving. [The pasuk] then says ‘and he will not die’ to teach that if he would come there without being heard and barge in suddenly then he would die because the ministering angel that were there surrounding the Shechina would bump into him… Therefore, the kohen was commanded to be sure the bells are heard, similar to what it says in Tehillim (55:16)’ That together we would devise counsel; in the house of G-d we would walk with a multitude.’

And this sign of announcement, as well as asking permission, was required throughout the year. The reason why it says ‘its voice shall be heard upon entering the Holy,’ but not when he went into the inner chamber of The Holy of Holies, is because in the Holy of Holies he did not have to be heard, and he did not enter with his golden garments, rather only with his white garments. This was the great level of the Jews, that the Kohen Gadol would enter into the The Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur without needing the sign of announcement or asking for permission. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
This gives us a whole new understanding of the Jews being equated to angels on Yom Kippur. To the extent that the Kohen Gadol was able to enter without any announcement, into the holiest place in the world where no one can enter besides him on Yom Kippur, that’s the level a Jew can reach, and it’s a praise for the entire Jewish nation who he represents.

However, throughout the rest of the year, according to the second reason for the bells, if the angels really knew when he was coming in, why didn’t they just move out of his way as soon as he came in? Why were bells needed? The Kohen Gadol was doing the job of serving Hashem just as the angels were; they should have respected it when it was his turn to do the service of Hashem. Why then were the bells needed as a sign and announcement to indicate when he was coming and leaving?

It would seem that it was ceremonial. Just as l’havdil, the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace has a whole procession for the honor of the king, so too the announcement of the bells when the Kohen Gadol was walking in and out of Sanctuary was a “ceremonial changing of the guards” for the honor of Hashem. Without this “ceremony,” the Angel’s would not move from their post because that would be disrespectful to Kavod Shamayim, the honor of Hashem. Therefore if the bells would not have chimed and the Kohen Gadol would suddenly come in, he would die and that is also why the Angel’s would only return to their post upon hearing the bells at the Kohen Gadol’s exit.

Sensitivities towards Hashem’s honor are paramount to basic manners, but we see that it should also be applied to human kings as well, because this is a moral lesson of how a person should always act. Nevertheless, the greatness of Jewish nation is that on the holiest day of the year, in the holiest place on earth, Hashem allows his beloved servant to be like “an equal,” a beloved son who does not need a ceremonial announcement to enter.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 halacha 13

The conditions discussed in halacha 12 to be able to help someone out who was ripped off, either overcharged or given a lesser quality product then expected, can only be used if you know the buyer would not take action into his own hands, but rather would take the seller to court but if he is known to take matters into his own hands you can’t tell him he was ripped off unless you meet 3 more conditions:

1. You yourself saw the product he bought and know he paid too much for the quality of that item. It can’t be secondhand knowledge. That most likely means you must be an expert at making evaluations. This is because, just as a court won’t accept secondhand testimony, so to in this case where he will take matters into his own hand, you must treat it like a court case.

 2. You can’t tell him alone, it has to be told by two people, as witnesses since the court would not extract money from someone without two witnesses, unless it is well know what the value of the item is and the court would not need witnesses to prove that he was ripped off, then you can go over to him as an individual to inform him he was ripped off, since this would be no different than a court.

3. But this is impossible if you know he won’t do anything to rash beyond what the court would sentence, but if he will take action, for example, leave the item in the store and steal some money, or another item from that store, or do any other unlawful thing which is more than what a court would enforce to be done, then you can’t tell him he was ripped off.

 In any event the chances of meeting all the conditions to be able to talk are very slight, especially since there are times that you might speak up out of hatred for the company he bought from. But even if you meet all the conditions, that just means you don’t have a prohibition of lashon hara, but you are helping him to sin because he wants to take care of things on his own and not through the courts. Even if many people told him he’s in the right and the store is in the wrong but he still didn’t go through the courts to fix the situation.

There are many times unfortunately now a days where a person buys a product, let’s say for example he signs an agreement to install new windows into his home, and maybe will pay in increments. He then tells his friend all about it and his friend says owe you were ripped off the going rate is this much. But the reality is prices fluctuate and you have to make sure you know the latest value, and when he bought the items before you can say anything like that to him, because all you are doing otherwise is instilling hatred into the buyer towards the seller and the seller might not have done anything wrong. You can be giving him bad advice, starting and amplifying a big argument and transgressing many sins like lashon hara if you don’t meet the conditions, placing a stumbling block in front of the blind by advising him to unlawfully return the item or any other idea which would cause a loss to the seller (assuming the item doesn’t have a return policy). You will also be transgressing the sin of starting a fight and the ensuing sins that will follow as the fight potentially escalates. It’s better to not say a thing and keep to yourself unless you absolutely know and are confident you are doing the right thing, and with G-d’s help, everything works out without any problems.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #222

Question: Why does Rav Elyashiv poskin that if you can’t find the person you decided to give tzedaka to you can give it to someone else?

Background:

A.    The Mishna Berura (694:2:6) says that one should not switch Purim money with other tzedaka. Specifically, the Gabbaim, but a poor person can do what he wants with the money. Meaning that the money collected has to be given out for the needs of purim. The Beis Yosef, quoting Haghos Ashr”i says that money, that one thinks in his heart, he wants to give out to the poor on Purim, should not be changed. The reason is because he holds that tzedaka is like hekdesh and you have to fulfill what’s in your thoughts, even if you don’t say them out.

B.      Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah 258:39) says that you can’t change only if you decisively decided in your heart to give to a certain person or place, but if you only thought you want to give this amount everyone agrees you don’t have to fulfill what you thought.

C.     Rav Elyashiv, therefore, poskins that one should not decisively think to give money to a certain gabbai tzedaka if you are unsure if you will find him, rather you should think in your mind that you have no decision until it reaches the intended hands. But both the Chazon Ish and Rav Elyashiv poskin that if you decide to give money to a certain poor person and you can’t find him then you can give it to some other poor person. Why?

D.    We say, Erev Rosh Hashanah by hataras nedarim, “In case I forget the conditions of this declaration and I make a vow from this day onward, from this moment I retroactively regret them and declare them that they are all totally nullified and void, without effect and without validity and they shall not take effect at all. Regarding them all, I regret them from this time and forever. ”

Answer: Rav Elyashiv says that because you can rely on the declaration made by the annul of vows on Erev Rosh Hashanah, since the vow was only in one’s thoughts, then you can give it to another poor person because you must not have decisively decided to give it to a specific person as retroactively revealed by the declaration.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 halachos 11, 12

 If one has already been overcharged or given an inferior quality product, the question of whether you can tell him about it really depends if he can do something about it. If he was charged over a a sixth of the going rate, then you can tell him and he can get his extra money back. If it was less than a sixth of the going rate, then we assume there is automatic forgiveness of being overcharged because it is within reason so you can’t tell him he was overcharged and it would constitute rechilus if you do. Even if he has not fully paid for what he bought, he has installments, and still can’t tell him, lest he does not pay the rest that he had originally agreed he owed. If it was an inferior or faulty product and he can still return it then you can tell him but if it is after the return policy then you can’t tell him and you should even praise the product if he asks you about it. That’s not transgressing lying because you are coming to avoid the prohibition of rechilus. This is based on a gemara I’m Kesubos 17a. If you know the person is the type of person that even if you tell him he was ripped off he won’t do anything about it, like he’ll be too lazy to return it or to call up and go through the hastle of getting some of his money back, and he’ll only have hatred towards the salesman for what happened then you can’t tell him either unless you know you can stop him from buying from there again. Of course, you have to meet the 5 conditions before being allowed to speak up:

1. You can’t exaggerate.

2. Your intent must be just to help your oppressed friend; therefore, it is highly likely that a competitor of the store he bought at can’t tell him that he was ripped off.

3. If you can rebuke the salesman and he will go over to the buyer and fix the problem then you should do that without telling the buyer.

4. If you can figure out a way to inform him of what happened without saying it straight out you should do so, for example if you can indirectly direct him to an advertisement, commercial, or article about the product he bought and he sees he was ripped off and will fix the situation on his own then you should do that and not tell him. We see that Hashem did a similar thing when he told Yehoshua to make a lottery to reveal that Achan was the one who was putting the entire Jewish nation in peril for the sin that he committed.

 5. If you see that the buyer by nature is a big talker and he will go over to the seller and name you as telling him that he was ripped off then it’s not so simple that you can tell him (and I am not sure if you would want to tell him) because you will be causing him to speak rechilus since he will tell the storekeeper who he got his information from. But if he promises not to drop any names then you can tell him.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #221

 Question: Why does Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach allow teenage girls to sing on buses, like on a class trip if they have a Jewish male bus driver? (Even if one or two girls are singing louder than the rest.)

Background:

A.    The Mishna Berura (75:3:17) says one should be careful to not listen to a woman singing while reciting the Shema, even your wife, but her normal voice is fine. Other than while reciting the Shema a single girl’s voice is technically not considered forbidden, however now a days we treat her as a nidda who is forbidden just as a married woman or any other illicit relation, and even a non-Jewish woman, are all forbidden for men to listen to them singing. The concern is that it might lead to forbidden thought which possibly could lead to forbidden action.

Answer: While he is driving, he is too busy focusing on the road or distracted by his job so we aren’t concerned that he is really listening to the girls singing. (See Dirshu footnote 27.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles #220

Question: Why does the Aderes hold you can say a regular refua shleima, that you would say during the week, to a sick person you are visiting on Yom Tov?

Background:

A.    The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 287:1) says that one can comfort mourners on Shabbos and can also visit the sick. But he should not say to a sick person the same thing he would say during the week, but rather, “Shabbos one should not cry out, and the healing should come near…” (Shabbos hee mi’lizok u’refuah krova lavo…)

B.     The Dirshu Mishna Berura (footnote 1 here) brings a Shevet Yehuda which explains that through screaming out in anguish over one who is sick , one will ask for mercy to Hashem for the sick person. This is considered asking for personal needs which is forbidden on Shabbos. The Mekor Hachaim says the same expression we say on Shabbos should be said on Yom Tov. However the Aderes argues.

C.     We are more lenient on Yom tov to ask for personal need (at least in specific circumstances) as we say the prayer of “Ribono Shel Olam” when we take out the Torah.

 Answer: Since on yom tov we are more lenient to ask for personal needs then on Shabbos that is why saying refuah shleima would be permissible on yom tov, even though we don’t ask for our own personal need at the end of Shemone esray on Yom Tov. We only beseech the prayers that were officially set up by Chaza”l.