Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 9 halacha 4

One shouldn’t live in a neighborhood which has groups of people constantly congregating and speaking lashon hara, baalei lawhon hara. This is based on a Rambam which quoted the Mishna in Pirkei Avos 9:1 that says, “Woe to the wicked and woe to their neighbors.” This quote was also mentioned by Rashi in reference to Korah and the tribe of Reuvein. One definitely shouldn’t join the group even if he will tell himself, he won’t accept anything he hears because just lending an ear to listen is forbidden. What’s even worse is to sit in shul in an area where people are talking and speaking lashon hara during davening because not only are you listening and probably joining into the conversation, but you might very likely miss answering by kaddish, amens, barchu, listening intently to the Torah reading etc. Also, to sit with shmuzers in a Beis medrish will also cause you to waste time from your learning and your learning won’t be as sharp since it will be fragmented.

A baal lashon hara, one who constantly is speaking lashon hara is so bad that the Chofetz Chaim warns that a Rebbe might have to expel a student if he sees he can’t stop him from speaking lashon hara, as Rav Ashi, an Amora who was one of the compilers of the gemara had to do with one of his students in Sanhedrin 31a.

If one finds himself in a group of people speaking lashon hara then he certainly should rebuke them if he thinks it will work. If it wouldn’t work but he thinks it won’t harm things then he should still rebuke them to let people know he is in disagreement of what’s happening. But if he thinks it will only harm the situation and make matters worse then it is better to say nothing. Just as praising someone is not allowed it will lead to lashon hara, so too rebuking someone for speaking lashon hara is not allowed if it will lead to worse lashon hara. It is better to try to switch the conversation or walk away. If you can’t do that then stick your finger in your ears and if that’s too embarrassing then make a face of disgust and be absolutely still, and have in mind not to accept anything that you hear.

 But at all costs one should try to stop others from sinning, just like the Rambam says that if you see a rabbi in the street wearing Shaatnez then one should pull off his garment in the middle of the street to avoid a chillul Hashem. In this case it’s easier, just create a distraction or change subjects from the conversation at hand, or as preemptive measures give incentives to people for not speaking lashon hara and learning the laws about it.

Posted on

Mattos/Maasei – Experience = Knowledge

This week’s Haftorah is the second of the Haftorahs that lead up to Tisha b’Av discussing the demise of the Jewish people by the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash. It is read this week even though it is Rosh Chodesh Av on Shabbos and normally a special haftorah is read when the new month falls out on Shabbos.

Towards the beginning of the Haftorah Yirmiyahu prophesizes, “And I brought you to a forest land to eat of its produce and its goodness, and you came and contaminated My land, and made My heritage an abomination. The priests did not say, “Where is Hashem?” And those who hold onto the Torah did not know Me and the rulers rebelled against Me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal and followed what does not avail. Therefore, I will still contend with you, says Hashem, and with your children’s children will I contend” (Yimiyahu 2:7-9).

Yirmiyahu is speaking for Hashem about how He brought the Jewish people into such a precious land and they did not live up to their promise of following His will and taking care of the land. Therefore Hashem felt He must exact punishment against them for generations unless they repent.

The Radak explains that Hashem had claims against the Kohanim, who serve Hashem in the Beis HaMikdash every day, for not rebuking and questioning the Jews, ‘Where is Hashem in your life that you choose to worship idols instead?’ Or the kings, who are referred to as shepherds since they are supposed to be guiding the nation; but they are rebelling. Also, the false prophets who were leading the Jews astray to worship the idol of Baal. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem also had an argument against “those who hold onto the Torah,” for they “did not know Me.” What does that mean? The Radak explains that this refers to the wise men, learned in Torah, ‘who don’t know Me for they did not learn Torah Lishma, for the Sake of Hashem, in order to fulfill what is written in it, rather they learned it with their mouth and heart.’ This is what it means by, ‘did not know Me,’ because good thoughts and good deeds is its knowledge, not just the learning of it (referring to the Torah).

The Radak is teaching us that a person can know the whole Torah by heart and be able to rattle it off to anyone and answer questions on any subject of the Torah. But if he just uses the Torah as an intellectual pursuit and does not actively fulfill what he has learnt then he does not truly know it. Not only does he not Know Hashem but he does not really know the Torah of Hashem, that he had supposedly learned and knows well.

But how can this be? The pasuk refers to these people as “those who hold onto the Torah” and the Radak says they learned it with their mouths and heart, and do not just pay lip service but they internalized it in their hearts. This sounds like they aren’t just repeating what they memorized but they can think and ascertain what they have learned and give answers to questions they are asked. It makes sense that they are sinners for not doing Hashem’s will, for serving Hashem is doing His mitzvos. It also makes sense that these wise men don’t really understand Hashem because although learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvos, Hashem still expects one to “follow what he preaches” and learns. However the Radak also says that Hashem is referring to a lack of knowledge of the Torah itself; how can that be?

It would seem that if one does not practice what he learns he cannot truly understand or know it. Experience is part of knowledge. If a person does not fulfill and practice what he has learned, he does not really know what he is talking about, even if he can repeat the halacha and logically answer questions on it.

The wise men of the generation right before the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed were criticized for not knowing Hashem. It is hard to hear that they did not fulfill the Torah at all, but it was purely an intellectual pursuit. However, it makes sense that the more one practices the Torah, acting with proper manners, doing good deeds, and performing the mitzvos properly the more he knows Hashem, and His Torah. It would seem that these sages on some level were not as meticulous in their Torah and mitzvos performance and that is why Hashem criticized them for not knowing Him.

At this time leading up to Tisha B’av may we approach it with more brevity in fulfilling Hashem’s Torah and mitzvos, doing good deeds and polishing up on our positive thoughts. In this way we can turn the fast of Tisha b’Av into the holiday of Tisha B’Av. If not now, then when!

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #207

2. Question: After Chatzos of Tisha b’av when one puts on tallis and tefillin, why can you say verses people have a custom of saying upon putting on tallis and tefillin but one should not say Shema and the parsha of “kadesh” upon putting on tallis and tefillin?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (555:1:5) says that by mincha one should put on tallis and tefillin and say a blessing on them but should not recite the 3 paragraphs of Shema or the parsha of “kadesh” because at this point it is like reading Torah, (since the mitzvah of krias shema is in the morning) and Torah learning is forbidden the entire day of Tisha b’av.

B. In Dirshu footnote 5 in the name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, he says one can recite the verses that there is a custom to recite upon putting on tallis and tefillin.

C. Halacha is normally very strict with wearing tallis and tefillin while saying Shema because they are testimony to belief in Hashem since tallis and tefillin are mentioned in the 3 paragraphs of Shema.

 Answer: Because the verses recited upon putting on tallis and tefillin are a custom then it is not considered Torah learning but since the mitzvah of krias Shema has passed by mincha then it’s just considered Torah learning which is forbidden on Tisha b’av and it is only proper to have tallis and tefillin on in the morning when krias Shema is recited and not vice versa, i.e Shema must be recited while wearing tallis and tefillin.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #206

1. Question: If a person took upon himself a personal fast right after shabbos, that night, why can he say havdala over wine from plag hamincha and drink the wine but if one would make havdala from that time when Tisha b’av falls out Motzei shabbos/Sunday then he can’t drink the wine because he took on the fast?

Background:

A. A personal fast is a vow and a vow is based on the language of how it was said. And how something is said is based on how people normally say things.

B. The acceptance of the fast of Tisha b’av is dependent on havdala if it falls out on Motzei shabbos.

Answer: When a person says he’s taking on a fast after shabbos he does not considered the, while it is still light, as an acceptance of the fast if he makes havdala for he means to start the fast at actual night but on Tisha b’av as soon as havdala is made the fast starts, so it’s forbidden to drink, even if havdala was made at plag hamincha. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 556:1:2:3)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 9 halachos 2, 3

More examples of Avak Lashon Hara

  1. One should not praise people in front of a crowd no matter how much praise because it’s many times inevitable that someone who doesn’t like him will be in the crowd and start trash talking and downplaying this person’s praise. However, if (a) you know there is no one around who is his enemy, for example nobody knows him. Or (b) He is such a good person that one can’t find faults in him so even his enemies won’t say anything bad about him or will be immediately shut down if they try, then it’s permissible to praise someone in public. This could be why it permissible to talk about honorees at a banquet. Just don’t go overboard with the praises.
  2. You shouldn’t sit around with a group of people praising the gedolim, the Torah leaders of the generation because people will start comparing and it will inevitably turn into lashon hara, which is worse than speaking lashon hara about a regular Jew, because it might askew one’s attitude towards Torah Judaism. Hashem takes action against those who malign those who are closest to Him.
  3. One shouldn’t say anything which might cause others a monetary loss: A. A guest tells the world how great his host was and everyone flocks to get a meal by the host which might become too overwhelming and inappropriate people might get in also. B. Some publicizes how nice a person was for giving him a loan. This might lead to people who are con men asking for a loan and stealing the money.
  4. You should say things that sound suspicious and might sound like lashon hara. For example, if one warns others a few months later, when there has been calm in the area for a while, “I knew the whole time the guy was a thief.” Well why didn’t you say something beforehand when people could have taken precaution to protect their money?
Posted on

Pinchas : A Never-Ending Battle


The daughters of Tzelafchad stealthily approach Moshe Rabbeinu in this week’s Torah portion of Pinchas, (perek 27), to claim their father’s share in the land of Israel since Tzelafchad did not have any sons to inherit him. Tzelafchad’s identity is unclear; he was either the mekoshesh eitzim, the one who gathered wood on Shabbos, or one of those who acted rashly and died in the second year in the desert. This means his daughters were born in Egypt and waited forty years in the desert before approaching Moshe Rabbeinu and getting married (See Maharz”u on this upcoming medrish).

The Medrish Rabba, with the Matnos Kehuna’s explanation woven inside it, points out that the daughters of Tzelafchad were all righteous because they refused to marry anyone except for those who were appropriate for them. Why then did Hashem orchestrate that they would approach Moshe in the end of the forty years wandering in the desert? So that Moshe won’t observe himself, and become haughty, over the fact that Moshe himself was divorced from his wife for forty years. Hashem therefore informed him about these women, saying, ‘Behold these women who were not commanded in the mitzvah of be fruitful and multiply only married a husband proper for them.’ The Rashash explains a bit more, that the daughters of Tzelafchad were not commanded to marry only a man who is appropriate for each one of them, whereas  Moshe was commanded to separate from his wife, either explicitly or through a kal vachomer, fortiori. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
According to this medrish, Hashem purposely created a situation that the daughters of Tzelofchad would only approach Moshe Rabbeinu at the end of his life, in order for him not to be haughty over the fact he was able to last forty years separated from his wife in order to be Hashem’s direct in-between with the Jews. They too were voluntarily single for at least that long until they found the right shidduch and proper time to be married, in spite of the fact that the gemara in Kiddushin 7a and many other times throughout Shas mentions that the attitude that women tell each other is that it’s better to be married than single, טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו, whereas Moshe Rabbeinu was without a wife upon command of Hashem.

Moshe Rabbeinu was known to be the humblest person in history, proclaimed by the Torah from this very episode, which began 38 years before where Miriam criticized Moshe for separating from his wife, as it says there, “And the man, Moshe, was very humble from every person on the face of the earth” (Bamidbar 12:3). Now, this very episode is coming to haunt Moshe Rabbeinu and threatens his humility, for if the daughters of Tzelofchad would not have engaged Moshe at that moment it would seem that the humblest person in history would have felt, albeit most definitely a very minute and miniscule amount of, haughtiness for having been able to last as long as he had without being married.

Why would we think that Moshe Rabbeinu, the humblest person in history, would have felt any level of arrogance for this accomplishment, especially if this feat was the very thing which gave him the title of humblest person on the face of this earth?

Perforce, we are forced to conclude that this is a clear proof that the struggle to do the right thing and to reach and retain perfection is a lifetime accomplish that never ceases until the very end. Even though Moshe Rabbeinu reached the top and the Torah truthfully testifies that he was more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth, if not for the fact that Hashem orchestrated the confrontation between the daughters of Tzelofchad and Moshe at the end of his life, it would seem that Moshe would have felt some tiny level of superiority over everyone else which would have tainted his humble character and only because Hashem intervened and Moshe must have realized the lesson Hashem was trying to teach him, and chose to take it to heart, did Moshe Rabbeinu remain perfect in his ultimate state of humility.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #205

2.       Question: Why don’t Yerushalmi citizens tear kriah over seeing the Temple Mount in ruins and taken over by Muslims, as per Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach?

Background:

A.      The Mishna Berura (561:2:6) says that upon seeing the ruins of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash one should bow and tear his clothes in mourning and say certain supplications, see there, if one has not been in Yerushalayim or seen the Temple Mount more than thirty days.

 Answer: Rav Shlomo Auerbach explains the Yerushalmi custom that because the citizens have the ability to easily go and see the site of the Beis Hamikdash but they don’t then it is apparent they don’t really feel too much pain over the destruction and therefore the custom for them is not to tear even if they do visit the Kosel. This applies to all Yerushalmis even those that live in the new outskirts of Yerushalayim. One can even nullify his vow to tear once he knows it is a valid custom for a Jerusalem citizen not to tear. (See footnote in the back of the Dirshu Mishna Berura, volume 6, page 23 on the bottom.) 

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #204

1.       Question: Why doesn’t the chosson break the plate by the tanaaim before a wedding, rather he only breaks the glass under the chupa, and the mothers of the chosson and kalla break the plate?

Background:

A.      The Vilna Gaon says there is specifically a custom for a ceramic plate to be broken by the tanaaim because there is no foundation in the Torah for tanaaim to be broken just as ceramic can’t be fixed but a marriage has a basis in the Torah for being broken if need be, i.e. divorce therefore a glass is broken under the chupa since a glass can always be forged back together a new through fire symbolizing there is a halachic way to untie the knot of marriage, through divorce.

B.      The Mishna Berura (560:2:9) says the custom to break these things both by the chupa and by the tanaaim is in order to mourn the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and one should feel joy while still feeling trepidation.

 Answer: Since the chosson’s full joy only comes when he completes the marriage under the chupa therefore he only has to break the glass to include mourning at that time and not before by the tanaaim. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura there footnote 20.)

Posted on

Balak – Constructive VS. Destructive


In this week’s Torah portion of Balak, Balak beseeches Bilaam to take care of Bnei Yisrael who are believed to be a threat to him and his nation. “Balak the son of Tzipor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. Moav became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted because of the Children of Israel” (Bamidbar 22:2, 3).
Balak offered 42 sacrifices to Hashem as commanded by Bilaam as part of the means to curse the Jewish people. There is a gemara quoted numerous times throughout Shas, the Talmud, including in Sanhedrin 105b which states, “Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and performance of a mitzva even if he does not do so for their own sake, as through engaging in them not for their own sake, he will ultimately come to engage in them for their own sake. Proof for this can be cited from the example of Balak, as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak sacrificed, even though he sacrificed them to facilitate the destruction of the Jewish people, he was privileged, and Ruth descended from him. Rabbi Yossi bar Huna says: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

It’s astonishing to think that proof to the famous concept in Shas of “mitoch shelo lishma ba lishma,” (through learning Torah and performing mitzvos not for the sake of Heaven will lead you to perform them for the sake of Heaven), comes from Balak, where the fruits of his performance were not even seen in his lifetime but later on through his grandchildren, Rus and her descendants. The Maharsha there references the same gemara in Horiyos 10b, where he elaborates on this subject.

In Horiyos the Maharsha points out that “Tosfos asks in Nazir 23b ‘Shemitoch’, ‘Don’t we normally say that one who is involved in a mitzvah not for the sake of Heaven, it’s better he was not created? They answered that there the case is where they were learning Torah not for the sake of Heaven but rather to do an injustice to others, but here to be involved in learning not for the sake of Heaven means to acquire fame for oneself.’ Tosfos pointed this out many times, however isn’t the case here seemingly to cause an injustice to others for they came to curse the Jewish people? However, we can answer that he only came to curse the Jews because he was afraid for his life, as it writes, ‘Balak the son of Tzipor saw… Moav became terrified… of the children of Israel.’ It is the same thing as acquiring fame for oneself. And when it says, ‘for by doing it not for the sake of Heaven etc., what it means is that, through doing it not for the sake of Heaven, meaning that he brought offerings not for the sake of Heaven, rather only to acquire a name for himself, he merited that it was eventually brought for the sake of Heaven for his offspring Dovid and Shlomo brought sacrifices for the sake of Heaven.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
This being true, it is still worthwhile to ponder what the Maharsha was originally thinking (his hava amina) when he asked the question, and what does his answer mean (his maskana)?

The Maharsha originally asked how this episode in the Torah could be the source for the concept that if one does mitzvos not for the sake of Heaven it will come to be done for the sake of Heaven, for that’s only true if you are performing mitzvos for the sake of your own fame and fortune; unlike Balak who wanted to curse and ruin the Jewish people. At first glance, he performed the mitzvah of bringing sacrifices to Hashem for the sake of hurting someone else, an injustice to others which means it would have been better if he hadn’t even been created. But what is the Maharsha thinking? Doesn’t he know the pesukim that clearly state that Balak and his nation, Moav, were afraid of the Jewish people and just wanted to defend themselves from the potential threat? Even if you say that of course the Maharsha knew the pesukim in the Torah, but he questioned that when one is performing a mitzvah not for the sake of Heaven, but for both, his own name and to strike at others, then it is still an injustice and one should not be able to eventually have mitzvos done properly stemming from these actions; if this is so then what is the Maharsha’s answer? What changed? Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the mitzvos of bringing 42 offerings to appease Hashem wasn’t just to gain fame for himself but was even better; it was to save their own lives in their eyes, and people have a right to defend themselves. So they were performing a mitzva in their own eyes, albeit misguided. And, if so, why did the Maharsha think that it looks like Balak did something so wrong that it was not worth creating him?

We must say that the Maharsha originally thought that anything which is destructive, even if something constructive comes out of it, is a terrible reason to perform a mitzvah. That is why the Maharsha asked how it’s possible to bring a proof from here that by doing a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven it will eventually be done for the sake of heaven, for that is only true if you are doing the mitzvah for your own constructive purpose, of making a name for yourself; then you will eventually perform mitzvos for the sake of Heaven, for His Holy Name. But Balak, even though he wanted to save his own life and the lives of his nation who mistakenly felt threatened, but by doing so they would be destroying a nation, the Jewish people, and a mitzvah should not be used in that fashion. Nothing good can come out of such mitzvos.

However, if you look carefully at the Maharsha’s answer, what he is saying is that their intent was only to save their own lives, they didn’t care if the Jewish people would be cursed and annihilated, they just wanted to survive. Their intent made it a purely constructive purpose, albeit not for the right reason. But it merited that Balak’s descendants, the grandchildren of Rus, his granddaughter, would bring offerings for all the right reasons, in Hashem’s Holy Name.

We see from here how important a role intent plays in performance of mitzvos and Torah learning. It could be the difference between a destructive use of a mitzva which is not worthy of being created to a creative, although imperfect, use of a mitzvah that leads to perfection and the ideal way of performing Torah and mitzvos.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 9 rest of halacha 1

The Rambam and Rabbeinu Yona define avak lashon hara as a statement which hints to or will cause lashon hara to be spoken. It’s very possible in most occasions one will also transgress lifnei iver, placing a stumbling block in front if the blind. Just as hitting an older child or loaning money without witnesses sets up a situation of sin, the parent is enticing his teenage or older child to hit him back, or the loaner is enticing the borrower to deny the loan and not pay it back, so to when you praise someone in front of their enemy or you say I don’t want to talk about it inevitably lashon hara will come out and your statement was the cause.

Saying I don’t want to talk about the matter is avak lashon hara, still prohibited but not outright lashon hara even though we said in the first chapter, halacha 8 that hinting to lashon hara is fully forbidden but there it’s referring to expressing a complete statement of lashon hara without saying it out loud like by winking or the like but here you are not expressing any lashon hara, rather you are just hinting to something that could lead to lashon hara. It is definitely forbidden to tell someone who asks about someone else “I don’t want to tell you because that would be lashon hara.” The best thing to do is try to avoid speaking, switch subjects or just say I don’t know.

The last examples of avak lashon hara in this halacha is the prohibition of overly praising someone even if it is not in front if his enemy because it will inevitably lead to either the speaker saying lashon hara because he’ll slip in a line, like “but he’s not always perfect…” or people in the crowd will chime in something of the like, “that’s not always true…” etc. There are even times that even some praise is forbidden if it implies that according to his standard or level there expected more of him in that area or in other areas.