Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Vayeishev -Two Dimensions

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.

The classic debate of how to understand Hashem as all-knowing, with the ability to see what was, is, and will be, because He runs the world, while balancing it with the concept of free choice, and the question of man’s ability to make decisions or not, is discussed in a Medrish Tanchuma (4) on this week’s Torah portion of Veyeishev. The quickest way to resolve the dilemma is to say that Hashem exists on a different dimensional plane from us, can see into our dimension, in fact created it and interacts with it constantly, at every moment, and without His interaction we would cease to exist. When Chaza”l says He is everywhere, and a name for G-D is Hamakom, The Place, but also that his Shechina, Holy Presence, rests in certain places, what that means is that G-D in fact is everywhere from the viewpoint of His dimension interacting with ours, and He is The Place because He created everything, but He focuses His Holy Presence in certain places more than others into our world, and even at different strengths, depending on our time, place, and what we deserve. But from within our dimension, with our limited viewpoint of time and space, we have the ability to make choices between good and bad and everything in between. Hashem created it purposefully in this way because He is by definition good and wants us to earn the best state of spiritual bliss and closeness, basking in His glory, that we can possibly attain. This is basically how to understand and believe that there is a G-D who is all powerful and all knowing, who created the world and is in constant control of the upkeep of its existence, and yet we also have free will.
 However, there is an added insight that can be gleaned from this medrish, for it states: “’And Yosef was brought down to Egypt’ This is analogous with the pasuk in Tehillim (66:5), ‘Go and see the deeds of G-D, awesome in His excuses toward mankind.’ Rebbe Yehoshua ben Karcha says, that even the awesome wonders that You bring upon us are brought through an excuse. Come and see, for when Hashem created the world, from the first day He created the Angel of Death. How do we know this? Rebbe Brechiya says because it says in the Torah, ‘and darkness upon the surface of the deep’ (Breishis 2:1). This refers to the Angel of Death who darkens the faces of creation. Man was created on the sixth, and an excuse was hung upon him that he brought death onto the world, as it says, ‘on the day you eat from it you shall surely die’ (Breishis 2:17). This is compared to one who wanted to divorce his wife. When he was planning on going back home he wrote a get (divorce bill). He entered the house with the get in his hand. He needed some excuse to give it to her. He said to her, pour me a hot drink I can drink. She poured for him. He said to her, get out of my house for you poured me a lukewarm drink instead of a hot drink. She said to him, you already knew I would pour you a lukewarm drink, for you wrote a get and brought it with you in your hand! So to Adam said to Hashem, “Master Of The World, 2000 years before you created the world, the Torah was already a nursling by you, as it’s written, “And I was then His nursling, and I was then a precious delight day, day” (Mishley 8:30) which equals 2000 years (for a day is like a thousand years for Hashem. Not that Hashem is bound by time, G-d forbid, for thousands of years is like one second by Him because He’s beyond time, rather Hashem just said this in a language that people would understand-Etz Yosef). It is written inside the Torah, ‘This is the Torah, a person who died in the tent’ (Bamidbar 19:14). If you would not have enacted death to people, would you have written that? Rather you blamed the excuse on me.” This is what it means ‘awesome is the excuse on people.’” The Etz Yosef explains this means that what Hashem decreed in His wisdom that whatever should be in this world, is not brought upon man in a forceful manner, to the point that a person’s actions are controlled, but rather it’s unfolded into reality through the actions of mankind without controlling people to do their actions. Like this woman who was not forced to pour lukewarm or cold water as her husband thought she would do, intending to divorce her. The matter of lukewarm water being poured was only an excuse, if it had not happened that way, there would have been some other reason.
The medrish goes onto to give a second example, about how Moshe was never meant to bring the Jews into Israel, but Hashem orchestrated the excuse of Moshe sinning by the hitting of the rock for that to happen.
The medrish brings a third example from this week’s parsha, “And so too we find by Yosef it says, ‘and his brothers saw that their father loved him [more] because of the scarlet stripe that he made on his striped coat. For this there were four tragedies done to him…. because of this, the coat of stripes caused all the tribes to go down to Egypt. Rebbe Yudan said Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise to Avraham that his descendants will go into exile and be redeemed with wealth, and He brought an excuse to ensure all of it comes about in that Yaakov loved Yosef and his brothers hated him, sold him to the Yishmaelites, who brought him down to Egypt, eventually Yaakov heard that Yosef was alive in Egypt and went down with the tribes there and were subjugated there. This is what ‘And Yosef went down to Egypt’ is referring to but don’t read it ‘as he went down’ but rather that ‘he brought down’ his father and family to Egypt. Rebbe Tanchuna says, what is this comparable to? To someone who wants to put a yoke onto a cow’s neck and it refuses the yoke. What does he do? He takes her calf from in back of her and drags it to the place he wants the cow to plow. The calf moos. The cow hears her calf moo and not for her own good she walks to her son. So to Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise He made to Avraham and He brought an excuse for all these events to happen so that they can go down to Egypt and He pays up his document. That is why it says ‘and Yosef went down to Egypt’ and this is the awesomeness of an excuse etc.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 The medrish wanted to prove that Hashem doesn’t control us like preprogrammed robots, forcing us to do things, but rather He set into nature a chain of events that will lead to the end result of what He desires. Yet the means are through individuals being manipulated, but making choices which lead to the end, desired result.

The medrish gives 3 examples. One is that people were destined to be mortal, yet it only came to be out of the choice made by Adam and Chava to eat from the Tree Of Knowledge. Two, Moshe was never destined to enter the land of Israel, but it only came into fruition because of his decision to hit the rock. And three, the promise made to Avraham was destined to be fulfilled but only came about through the means of Yaakov choosing to favor Yosef, which had a domino effect which landed Yaakov and his family in Egypt. The first example was explained based on a parable of a man wanting to divorce his wife and manipulating events for that to happen. The second example did not have or need a parable, and the third example had the parable of manipulating the stubborn cow to get into the yoke to plow. Why were two parables needed to explain the concept, and what were they emphasizing?

The first parable showed that the wife really had a choice, and yet she chose to serve her husband lukewarm water which resulted in a divorce, because she clearly didn’t treat him nicely. He knew what was going to happen, anticipated it, and was of course right, so he was prepared with the bill of divorce; yet technically he could have and would have found another excuse to hand it to her. So too, Hashem knew Adam perfectly, and knew this was going to happen, but left it up to him to choose to do what he did, and if he hadn’t done it, there would have been some other incident that would have justified making humans into mere mortals.

The second example is along the same lines as the first; however the third example is a bit different than the first two. The first two showed that Hashem knows the way people think, so He manipulated the circumstances in order that they would choose the destined end game. The third example showed that Hashem orchestrated a chain of events to happen in order to get the destined result; not necessarily because of the way one thinks, but through multiple, multifaceted events and characters coming together through free will, to create the desired effect. That is what both parables are teaching us. We see from here that G-D runs and directs the world, but we have free choice to choose whether we will be part of the destiny of Hashem’s master plan or someone else will, or even if it will involve us, the question is how we will be involved.

One might ask: which is harder to comprehend, that there is a G-d running the world or that we have free choice? One might think I can understand we have free choice because we make decisions every day, but who says there is really a G-D? However we see from here, from the fact that the medrish had to give two parables explaining how we have free choice in these situations, without proving that G-D exists, it must be it’s obvious and easier to believe in Hashem once one has come to the realization there is an All Mighty, All Powerful Master of the Universe, but it’s still difficult to then come to grips with the fact that we are not simply puppets controlled by Him. Therefore the medrish gave to parables to explain how we still have free will.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #211

Question: What’s the difference between rinsing off fruit which is forbidden on Shabbos according to the Chazon Ish and rinsing dishes on Shabbos which is permitted on Shabbos according to the Chazon Ish?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (319:8:28) says that one cannot soak fruits or vegetables in water to get off dirt on shabbos because it is borer (choosing bad from the good, using the water as a utensil).

B. The gemara in Shabbos 118b says you are allowed to rinse your dishes in running water or dip then in and out to clean the dishes because it’s cleaning not borer. Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rav Elyashiv all have a side to say that one can also rinse fruit and vegetables for the same reason as the dishes that it’s just cleaning not borer, if you do it right before you eat it. But Rav Elyashiv says it’s better to rinse fruit and vegetables before shabbos.

C. Hint: Borer is fixing the object being chosen.

Answer: Dirshu footnote 32: Rav Nissim Karelitz explains the Chazon Ish’s view that since borer is fixing the object being chosen, but vessels, since the way of using vessels is to use them, wash them and clean them off after each usage, then rinsing the vessel from its dirt is not considered fixing the vessel. But removing the dirt from fruits and vegetables is fixing the fruit and is considered borer. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach adds that vessels last a while, so even if there is dirt or food stuck to it, it’s not a mixture and removing it isn’t considered washing or borer, however food, since it’s nature is to rot and go bad, therefore if dirt or the like is mixed in with it, then removing it is considered borer.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 halacha 1

If you see your friend wants to partner with someone, or hire someone for a job, or babysitter, etc. And you feel that person will definitely cause harm to your friend, for example you know he is a thief. Even if you are the only one who knows it and no one else, you still must tell your friend in order to save him from harm. However, when telling you you must meet the 5 prerequisites that will be discussed in the next halacha. When speaking up about someone who someone else is about to hire you have to take 3 things into account. (A) are you allowed to tell your friend so that he won’t hire him and cause himself a loss, (B) is there perhaps a mitzvah, obligation to tell him, and (C) on the other hand it might be forbidden to tell him because it’s rechilus since he could be causing the would-be worker a loss. All these factors must be taken into consideration before talking to your friend in order to know whether you should, could, and if so how to talk to him. The mitzvah that one would be fulfilling or not transgressing is “לא תעמוד על דם רעך” (ויקרא 19:16) “Do not stand on the blood of your friend.” This prohibition doesn’t only apply to saving your fellow Jew’s life if you can but also protecting his money as we see in Sanhedrin73a. This isn’t just a prohibition against standing by and not testifying to get back money that you know was unlawfully taken away from your friend which you have an obligation to go to court and testify about even if you are alone, not two witnesses, because you can at least force the suspect to swear and pay but even as an individual to go over to the potential victim and warn him about the thief or any damage lurking in his midst is a mitzvah and if not done one will transgress this prohibition. See Choshen Mishpat 426:1, Sifra Vayikra 19:16, Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos mitzva 297, Shaar Mishpat Choshen Mishpat 28:2, also see Sefer Hachinuch mitzvah 236).

Even though it seems very clear that one must speak up and it would not be rechilus if he helps someone not get hurt physically or monetarily but one must remember that he cannot be too quick to speak up and be sure to meet all the 5 prerequisites before doing so in order not to transgress the prohibition of rechilus.
Posted on

Vayishlach – Unhinged Vs. Leaders and Police

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.

Yaakov engages with his brother Esav in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayishlach. The Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer (chapter 37) depicts the unhinged personality of Esav: “When Yaakov went to enter the land of Canaan, Esav came to meet him from Har Seir, fuming with great rage, to kill him as it says, “The wicked man plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him” (Tehillim 37:12). Esav said, I will not kill my brother with bow and arrow, rather I will kill him with my mouth and suck out his blood, as it says “Esav ran to meet him and he hugged him and fell on his neck, and kissed him, and cried” (Breishis 33:4). Don’t read the word as וישקהו, and he kissed him, but rather וישכהו, and he bit him. However [miraculously], Yaakov’s neck turned hard as bone and blunted Esav’s teeth.

The beginning of this chapter in Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer quotes a pasuk in Amos (5:19) to explain Yaakov’s escape from Lavan but into the clutches of Esav: “As if a man flees from the lion and the bear meets him…” The lion is Lavan who ran after Yaakov to take his life. The bear is Esav who was standing on the road like an agitated bear coming to kill a mother with her children. The lion has feelings of shame, but a bear feels no shame. Yaakov got up and prayed before Hashem saying, ‘Master of the World didn’t you tell me to go back to the land of your forefathers, and where you were born, and I will be with you? But my brother Esav now comes to kill me and he is not afraid of You, and I am afraid of him.’ From here they say don’t be afraid of police or a ruler, rather from a person who does not fear Hashem and stands up against you on the road like an agitated bear to kill a mother with her children. The Beur Maspik explains that Lavan had shame before Hashem, for he said to Yaakov ‘And the G-d of your father…you shall watch yourself from talking with Yaakov good or bad’ (Breishis perek 31). Lavan was frightened from what Hashem told him in a dream. Accordingly, Chaza”l says that one who feels shame won’t be quick to sin but Esav did not have any fear of G-D before his eyes at all. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
In the Pesach Hagada we read “Come and learn what Lavan the Arami tried to do to our father Yaakov. While Pharoah decreed only against the males, Lavan desired to uproot all. For so it is written, ‘An Arami sought to destroy my father; and he went down to Egypt and dwelled there, a handful, few in number. There he became a nation, great, mighty, and numerous.” We see from here that Lavan was worse that Pharaoh in a sense because he wanted to wipe out the entire family and there would never have been a Jewish nation. But Pharaoh, despite all the terrible and torturous decrees he made, would at most only have wiped out the Jewish males. Furthermore, Lavan is referred in the Torah as a fraudster; he is unpredictable, constantly devising plots to undermine his fellow, in this case Yaakov. So wasn’t Yaakov concerned at least as much, if not more, about Lavan than about Esav? As with Esav, it can be seen pretty blatantly his wrath and intent, but Lavan could double cross him and he might not even realize it?

It would seem, though, that because Lavan had this shame, some level of moral decency, that it put him in check and was easier to deal with. But Esav, having a lack of care and decency for anything, was a totally unhinged character, unpredictable, and that is why Yaakov was afraid of him, and needed to reinforce his proper faith and trust in Hashem, which he eventually did, by praying to Hashem to save him from his brother and then setting up a strategic plan of splitting his family up into two camps and giving gifts to Esav in order to appease him.

This isn’t just about people who are G-D fearing or not G-D fearing, although that happened to have been the major difference between Lavan and Esav. Though one wouldn’t exactly call Lavan G-D fearing, he at least recognized that one doesn’t mess with Hashem if He comes to you in a dream. However, from the fact that the Ralbag extends this to any ruler or policeman, not just a Jew, it must mean that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has shame and one who is not shameful at all.  From the fact that the medrish compares a ruler or policeman to one who does not fear Hashem would seem to mean that just having a sense of law and order, living by the rule of law as a policeman or a ruler does, gives them at least the potential ability to be more attuned to fear of G-D, even if they don’t outwardly express any connection to religion but when faced with the opportunity as Lavan was, they would more relate to subjugating themselves to the will of G-D. They have the moral decency and more of a chance to feel ashamed if they break the rules they live by and enforce. Whereas a person who is lawless and doesn’t care about the law at all, has no shame and is crazily unhinged, He won’t ever be ashamed and fear Hashem with his current attitude, no matter how blatant and obvious the messages are being sent his way.  That is a reason to be worried and afraid of that type of person, versus the police or a ruler.

Lavan was a chieftain, a ruler of Aram, and even though he was a scam artist he at least had some moral decency and on some level even a fear of Hashem that kept him in check. So Yaakov felt he was able to deal with Lavan, whereas Esav was a totally unhinged person with no shame, and certainly no fear of Hashem, so he was totally unpredictable and that is why Yaakov was rightfully afraid of him.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 introduction

In the laws of Lashon hara chapter 10 was dedicated to cases where one is allowed to speak lashon hara about a person was acting inappropriately in matters of man and his fellow man, i.e. interpersonal relationships, and the speaker is only speaking out for the betterment of others. Now, chapter 9 of the laws of Rechilus is dedicated to when one is ideally permitted to speak rechilus, if the speaker’s intent is to remove or avoid damages. The Chofetz Chaim concludes the introduction that may Hashem not cause me to stumble in the word of Jewish law.

In the Be’er Mayim Chaim the Chofetz Chaim elaborates, and says that before we begin the chapter, he wanted to discuss something very important in these matters. From the fact that the Rambam (Hilchos Deos 7:5) says, “If one tells someone something that will cause, if the word spread, for damage to happen to the subject matter, either physically, monetarily, painfully, or fear, this is considered lashon hara.” Based on this it seems that lashon hara is different than any other monetary damage because one is normally exempt from indirect damage but liable for indirect when speaking lashon hara. The reason being is that the Torah doesn’t forbid anything that leads to monetary damage, for example one is permitted to make a fire in his backyard for a BBQ, or is allowed to have a herd of oxen, etc. but technically if they do direct damage, he is liable, therefore if indirect damage happened he is exempt. However, Lashon hara is ideally forbidden to be spoken to begin with so even indirect damage is forbidden. Therefore if one wants partner in business or wants to be hired for a job and someone else had said something bad about him and it traveled until it got to the would be partner or hire and he does not get the job, it is the person who originally spoke the lashon hara who is at fault for this guy not landing the job in the business deal, even though he wasn’t the one who told the partner or the one hiring the guy. This issue of rechilus and lashon hara is not just direct damage but even preventing someone from getting good coming to themes forbidden. There is a famous case in Kiddushin 59a of a person who grabs an ownerless cake rolling down the road which he sees a poor hungry person running after it to get it and he picks it up to keep it for himself. He is called wicked for taking away the opportunity for the poor person to acquire a piece of food even though it didn’t belong to anyone and he had equal riht as the poor man to acquire it but he didn’t need it, though he wanted. All the more so a person who bad mouths someone and causes him not to get a job or the like and he’s not viaing for the job himself, is certainly called wicked, for example he says this guy is a great electrician, but he has a very bad attitude. So now the person he told is going to look for someone else, and the electrician is out of a job and lost money even though he could have done it just fine, all because you spoke rechilus about him, for no benefit to yourself that’s why you are wicked. The Chofetz Chaim concludes that he went onto so much detail here to make clear that all the examples we are about to learn are forbidden rechilus if the parameters are met to permit one to speak out.

Posted on

Vayetzei – Don’t Ask for Too Much

This Dvar Torah is dedicated l’iluy nishmas Chana Chaya bas Chaim Yachnes, a woman loved by all who knew her, May she be a melitza yosher for gantz Klal Yisrael, amen.



Did you ever wonder why Rochel named her first child Yosef? In this week’s Torah portion of Vayetzei the Torah states in perek 30:

23 And she conceived and bore a son, and she said, “G-D has taken away my reproach.” כגוַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר אָסַ֥ף אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־חֶרְפָּתִֽי:
24So she named him Yosef, saying, “May Hashem grant me yet another son!” כדוַתִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ יוֹסֵ֖ף לֵאמֹ֑ר יֹסֵ֧ף יְהֹוָ֛ה לִ֖י בֵּ֥ן אַחֵֽר:

The Rashbam says that Rochel could have named him Asaf, for Hashem ‘taking away her humiliation’ but she called him Yosef because she prayed to have another child so both names were in mind. Rashi adds: “She knew through prophecy that Jacob was destined to establish only twelve tribes. She said, “May it be His will that the one He is destined to establish be from me.” Therefore, she prayed only for another son [and no more]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 72:6]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Ralbag, however, understands the pasuk as not saying that Rochel had prophesy, but rather the reason behind the prayer was purely practical. “It’s appropriate when asking for a favor or grace [from Hashem] to not ask for something big because maybe He will decisively reject giving the favor altogether. For this reason, you will find that Rochel only asked for one more son so that she will have at least one more child. She did not ask for many children. For this reason, you will find by Yaakov that he only asked from the Blessed Hashem for bread to eat and clothes to wear. For this reason, it’s observed that the blessing of a prophet is calculated according to the one receiving it because he will not beseech Hashem for an abundance of good, more than deserved.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem is the All-knowing, Almighty, who can certainly do whatever He wants; therefore He has the ability to grant even a surplus of things if someone beseeches Him for that. Even if He doesn’t want to, or doesn’t think it is appropriate, why can a person not pray for an abundance of something and be satisfied with whatever he or she gets? It’s still connecting with Hashem and trusting Him, and if he doesn’t get all that he asks for; wouldn’t he be satisfied with what he does get? Why then does the Ralbag say he might get nothing if he asks for abundance? If one asks for a little and his or her prayers aren’t answered wouldn’t that person possibly question Hashem for not answering his or her prayers just as much as the person who asked for a lot and didn’t get all of it would seemingly question Hashem, which is probably why he or she will in the end get nothing?

It would seem that Hashem is unlikely to accept prayers asking for an abundance, but rather is ready to accept prayers asking for just what a person feels they need next. The reason must be because prayers for an abundance are really not full– hearted, and are more of a general plea,on which people would be willing to accept whatever they can get. For this reason, Hashem might not give them anything if He sees their intent, kavana, is not pure and strong. Asking in this fashion creates an attitude and feeling that one doesn’t need to pray as hard as they should. But when one is asking for a little, just enough for the next thing he wants or needs, then his davening will be more authentic, with greater kavana, intent and emotion, and therefore Hashem will be more receptive. And if he sees Hashem isn’t answering his pleas, there is more of a chance that he will understand that he himself isn’t praying hard enough, and he will try to redouble his intent before giving up or settling for what he has.

This is why Rochel only asked for one more son and Yaakov only asked for food to eat and clothes to cover his back, and why the prophet can only ask for what the person deserves, since the intent of the recipient will be more authentic.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #210

Question: Why does the Eshel Avraham hold that drinking coffee with milk in the morning is enough sustenance, the same as having bread for breakfast?

Background:

 A. The Mishna Berura (155:2:11) says that before going to the Beis medrish one can eat bread for breakfast if that is what he is use too, and it’s good to make it a habit, as it says in the gemara: There are 83 types of sicknesses caused by bile in the gall bladder and a kibeitzah (egg measurement as per the pri megadim) of bread with salt and cup of water in the morning can prevent it. And it’s a mitzvah to act with good attributes and in good measure to protect one’s health in order to be strong so that one can serve Hashem. (Parenthetically Rav Rav Shmuel Wasner zt”l says that if one doesn’t eat breakfast properly he is not a sinner because this wasn’t enacted by the Rabbis as a mitzvah but rather only as good advice and the proper thing to do, like a queasy mitzvah.

B. The Pri Megadim says that it doesn’t have to be specifically bread but any mezonos, cakes, cookies, crackers, pizza (pas haba bikisnen) will suffice, however a cooked dish even something like pasta, oatmeal or cream of wheat would not suffice.

Answer: Since the milk in the coffee has enough vitamins and minerals in it that suffices to sustain the person for this purpose. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura footnote 8.)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 8

There are many cases that fit into the category of avak rechilus, the dust of rechilus or quasi rechilus, which means you say something which isn’t negative, but the listener might take it negative and therefore it’s forbidden to say. Here are a few examples, please use your head to apply to cases elsewhere:

1. Gary at Todd, how is David doing? Todd says I don’t want to talk about it, or shhhhh, I don’t want to tell you what happened or what’s going to be with him. The point is Todd is obviously hinting to something bad that David is involved with, and Gary might now think up negative thoughts about David which might be or might not be true, but they are negative so it’s avak rechilus, even if the words that Todd said were not negative at all. If Todd had a negative tinge to his voice, then it could be real rechilus especially if Gary is looking for something, has an agenda to know what’s happening with David, but at the very least it is still avak rechilus. The best thing to say is David is fine and moves on with the conversation.

2. If you praise a person in front of someone else, not just his enemy, even loved ones or partners in business, if they will get upset then you can’t praise the person in front of them. For example you praise someone’s partner or spouse in front of their face on how much tzedaka he or she gives, or leant you a big loan, and the like. They might get and think how is just wasting or spending money without calculating, the business will go down the drains or he doesn’t care enough about the family etc. It might lead to arguments or even break ups. This only applies to telling people about big gifts or big loans or the like. This is why the gemara in Erichin 15a says “Do speak praise of your friend because through good it will come to bad.”

3. If you ask a favor from someone and he said I can’t do it. You can’t say back so and so told me you did this favor for him so why can’t you do it for me? The guy might get upset at the one he did the favor to because he told someone else what you did. And even if you don’t tell him that he told you that this guy did a favor for him, you just say I know you’ve done this favor for other people and it’s he knows who must have told him, that us still avak rechilus, because now he will be upset at the person, he originally did the favor to. 4. If you say something that you heard, that could be taken 2 ways. For example, if you tell someone I heard from so and so that you always have a fire on in your kitchen cooking meat and fish all the time. That could mean he’s a glutton and his wife is always cooking for him tons of delicacies to eat or they always have a lot of guests and she cooks up a storm all the time. He might have taken it the wrong way and think so and so was calling him a glutton and feel insulted. We see the severity of this issue from a Yerushalmi in Peah 1:1 with the Pnei Moshe who says that the Angel’s changed what Sarah said when they spoke to Avraham. Instead of saying she laughed and said my husband is old they said that she said I am old. Even though it was the reality and not an insult but it was like avak lashon hara so it was worth lying for this is the severity of avak lashon hara and avak rechilus.

5. The Chofetz Chaim quoting Rabbeinu Yona says this is worse than any other avak rechilus: A person must keep secret a secret his friend confided in him about, even though revealing the secret might not be rechilus but it could cause damage to the person who said the secret and might psychologically disturb him if he finds out the secret was leaked. Also it’s a lack of modesty to reveal a secret and he is just going against the words of the person who entrusted him with that secret.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #209

 

Question: What’s the difference between eating and drinking in regards to feeding your animal first where there is a mitzvah to give food to your animal before you eat but you don’t have to give a drink to your animal before you drink?

 Background:

 A. The Mishna Berura (167:6:40) says that if a person says a bracha, before taking a bite, besides being allowed to ask for the salt, or telling someone to pass a piece to someone, he can also say please feed the pet because there is a mitzvah to feed animals before you eat so if you forgot and said a bracha and about to eat then you can tell someone to feed the animals before he takes a bite. But in terms of drinking a person has the right to drink before his animals as we see that Rivka first gave water to Eliezer then the camels at the well.

B. There can be issues of getting too busy or suffering.

Answer: Footnote 31 in the Dirshu says in the name of the Ksav Sofer and Har Tzvi that a person will more easily get distracted while eating and forget to feed his animals then while drinking. Or a person is in more pain over thirst than over hunger so he has a right to drink first. The Ohr Hachaim adds that if he has a lot of hunger pains then he can eat first then feed animals.

Posted on

Toldos – Unwavering Dedication to Mesorah


In this week’s Torah Portion of Toldos, Yitzchak is found in Gerar due to another famine in the Land of Canaan. Yitzchak became very wealthy when in Gerar and the Torah relates, “And he had possessions of sheep and possessions of cattle and much production, and the Philistines envied him. And all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Avraham his father the Philistines stopped them up and filled them with earth. And Avimelech said to Yitzchak, ‘Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than we.’ And Yitzchak went away from there, and he encamped in the valley of Gerar and dwelt there. And Yitzchak again dug the wells of water which they had dug in the days of his father, Avraham, and the Philistines had stopped them up after Avraham’s death; and he gave them names like the names that his father had given them” (Breishis 26:14-18).
Rabbeinu Bachye elaborates on this episode. “The Torah is telling us that because of the jealousy the Plishtim felt they should close up the wells that were dug in the days of Avraham, his father, in order so that Yitzchak can’t make use of them for his crops and flock to drink. Yitzchak wound up overtaking them and digging up the wells and called them by the same names as his father. He did this in honor of his father. The fact that the Torah mentioned this seems to mean it was a merit to Yitzchak. There is inspiration to be learned from here and all the more so that one should not go against the ways of his forefathers. For we see that Yitzchak didn’t even want to change the names of the wells of his father all the more so one should follow the path of his forefathers, their customs and their mussar, (morality). And perhaps for this reason his name was not changed as our other forefathers, which was measure for measure. This is the explanation of the Gaon zt”l.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 We see from here that Yitzchak was so meticulous with following the ways of his father that even the wells that he had uncovered from when his father had first dug them were renamed the same names as his father had named them.
This was a gesture of respect for his father, to name the wells by the names his father had called them. Yet couldn’t he have shown his father even more respect by, let’s say renaming the wells after the many positive traits of his father, or something of the like, which would seemingly have been a greater honor to the memory of his father? What would have been the big deal if Yitzchak had changed the names of the wells?

It would seem that using the names his father had given to the wells is a greater honor to his father than naming them after his father. There also seems to be a connection to doing this simple act and the much broader picture of following his father’s morals and ways of life. This seems to be because adherence to tradition, to mesorah, in even the simplest of acts, reinforces our commitment to the ways of one’s parents and forefathers. Changing from these ways, as opposed to adaptation which might be needed at times, even if the change might seem  better, is a breech in the system of mesorah, which most definitely would lead to further excuses to change and possibly even eventual complete break away from the proper ways and customs of one’s family, religion and proper morals.

 Because of Yitzchak’s meticulous adherence to his family and their mesorah, measure for measure Hashem rewarded him with not needing to change his name.