Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #203

2.       Question: Why shouldn’t a man send regards to another man’s wife, whether directly, or through someone else even her own husband but he can ask how she is doing according to the Bach and the Shai LiMoreh even says that the Bach is telling us it is proper manners to ask him how his wife is feeling, but he can ask others how she is feeling as well?

Background:

A.      The Chelkas Mechokek in Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:6:7) says the reason why one shouldn’t send regards to a married woman even though her husband is obvious is because it shows affection and can lead to increase love and eventually sin.

Answer: Saying hello is showing affection, but asking how she is doing is just showing concern, which some opinions hold might lead to affection, but the Bach holds, it is proper derech eretz manners to be concerned about the health of any person, especially if it is known that someone is sick it makes those that are sick or there family members feel a bit better when they see people share their care and concern for them.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #202

1.       Question: Why is a decree of men requiring enlisting into the army not as bad as years of famine?

Background:

a.       When there is a serious drought or famine in a certain area, the Mishna Berura (574:4:9) says that people in that area must act in a way of causing anguish on themselves, for example not having relations with their spouse, decreeing days of prayer and fasting, etc. In fact the Shulchan Aruch there says it is a mitzva to starve oneself in years of famine, and it is forbidden to have relations unless on the night of when your wife comes back from the mikva, or if you are trying to have a child. Anyone who doesn’t care and eats and does what he wants will not see comfort with the congregation.

 Answer: Since the government decree is only on part of the people, it does not apply to women and children, then it’s not as severe, whereas a famine applies to everyone therefore everyone must aggrieve. See Dirshu Mishna Berura footnote 7 there.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 9 part of halacha 1

Today we began the laws of avak lashon hara, which literally means the dust of lashon. They are statements that might not sound so negative but it references or lead to discussing lashon hara.

Some examples are:

1. “Wow, I am amazed how far he has come!” This implies he is doing great now but not so great in the past and could lead to inquiries of what he used to do.

 2. “Shhhhh, I’d rather not talk about him.” If someone asks you about someone and you answer like this then it’s obvious something is wrong. It’s better say I don’t know, all is fine, or just change the subject. This admittingly is obviously not easy and it takes a lot of stealth and creativity to avoid this type of lashon hara.

3. “I don’t want to tell you what happened or what will be with so and so.” Obviously, something is up and by say that you are prodding him on to wonder what really happened. Better not to say anything or at least try to say a pareve statement like all is fine or nothing happened. Of course, this is assuming there is really no constructive reason to say anything.

4. One should talk the praise of someone in front of others who don’t like the subject being talked about because they will start bashing the one you praised. Besides the prohibition of avak lashon hara you also transgress lifnei iver, placing a stumbling block in front of the blind.

A person has to know or figure out before you praise someone if the person you are talking to has any qualms against the subject. For example, if you know a person dislikes a rabbi or judge, for example if he has ruled against him in the past, you can’t go over to him and ask how your new court case went, especially if he just walked out of court because if it did not go in his favor he’ll blow up and you were the cause of him ranting and speaking lashon hara.

Bottom line, if you want to talk about someone with someone else, even if what you tell is not lashon hara but you can figure out that he is not on good terms with the subject and the conversation will lead to lashon hara, you are forbidden to start the conversation. 

Posted on

Chukas – Pursuing Peace

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 Jewish People offered Sihon, King of Amora, peace before they attacked and waged war against the Amorites. The Torah in this week’s portion of Chukas states, “Israel sent emissaries to Sihon, king of the Amorites, saying…” (Bamidbar 21:21).
About this the Medrish Tanchuma references a pasuk in Tehillim 37:3, “Trust in Hashem and do good; dwell in the land and nourish yourself with faithfulness.” It also writes in Tehillim 34:15, “Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” The Torah, in fact, does not command to run after mitzvos, “If a bird’s nest happened to be before you on the road…” (Devarim 22:6). “If you see the donkey of someone you hate…” (Shemos23:4). “If you see the donkey…” (Devarim 23:4). “When you reap your harvest…” (Devarim 24:20). “When you harvest…” (Devarim 24:21). “When you come into the vineyard of your fellow…” (Devarim 23:25). By all these [mitzvos] if they come to you, you are obligated to fulfill them, but don’t run after them. However, peace you shall seek out from where you are and run after in some other place. And so the Jews did it even though Hashem said to them, “Begin to drive him out, and provoke war with him” (Devarim 2:24), still they ran after peace, as it says “Israel sent emissaries etc.”

The Be’ur HaAmarim explains what was bothering the medrish. According to this edition of the medrish two pesukim were initially quoted with the intent of asking why the Jews felt compelled to first offer them (The Amorites) peace when Hashem told them, “To insight a war” as we find in the beginning of Devarim. For this reason, the medrish brings two verses, for by “Trust in Hashem and do good” it writes “when dwelling in the land,” meaning, with this one can live in the land, in your spot and you don’t have to roam in the land and run after it (mitzvos). But by seeking peace it writes, “and you should run after it” even if it does not reach your hands. This now makes sense why they first asked for peace; for in this matter one must go beyond the letter of the law more than any other mitzva, and this is the will of Hashem. When Hashem commanded to wage war, that was just giving us permission, for it is not forbidden [to wage war with them] unlike Edom, Moav and Ammon. And in truth it was also the intent of Hashem that they would first approach them with peace to teach us the importance of running after peace, for if He just commanded about making peace, we would not know that for the sake of peace one has to go beyond the letter of the law. (Click here for Hebrew text)
This is quite an astonishing medrish! One would think that one should have an attitude to run after and seek out mitzvos instead of just letting them come to you. Do you realize the value of a mitzvah? The Mesilas Yesharim in the end of the first chapter writes about mitzvos “Behold, after knowing all this, we will immediately realize the grave obligation of the commandments upon us and the preciousness of the Divine service which lies in our hands. For these are the means which lead us to the true perfection. Without them, this state will not be attained in the least.” A mitzvah is more valuable than all the precious gems in the world put together. It has eternal reward, so wouldn’t you think one should run after and seek out mitzvos? For example everyone should become a farmer, there are so many mitzvos involved in farming! Yet it would seem to be a lack of trust and faith in Hashem if one would purposefully create and put himself into situations where he would have to fulfill a certain mitzva. Rather, a person should have the proper faith in Hashem that He will bring him mitzvos when he is deserving to have them, and when he gets the opportunity, he should do them with all his intent and effort. Of course, Hashem surrounds us with mitzvos everyday, and we have to open our eyes to reach and fulfill them, but we don’t have to pursue mitzvos that are not but for the will of Hashem for us to perform, at least at this moment or maybe ever. Forcing a mitzvah, when you shouldn’t be doing it, is not only not a mitzva but a lack of trust and faith in Hashem that he will provide us with plenty of opportunities to perform mitzvos at the proper time and place for each individual with their own unique purpose in life.

However, when it comes to peace, one is expected to run after peace as much as possible. Don’t wait for the other party to approach you. You must always have the attitude to run after and seek peace. Hashem allows us to wage war, when needed, for whatever appropriate reasons brought down in halacha. But why doesn’t the Torah command us to always be peaceful if peace is so important that it’s worth running after, and it’s not considered a lack of faith in Hashem if you wait for peace to come to you?

It would seem that the medrish is teaching us an incredible insight into human psychology. If Hashem would have made pursuing peace a mitzvah then a person would be stymied to really run after peace since he is bound by the letter of the law. Only because Hashem expects us to go beyond the letter of the law, the letter of the law says you are allowed to wage war if needed, but one is expected to act above and beyond the letter of the law, and if he realizes this expectation then he’ll put in more efforts to rise to the occasion and stand up to such a lofty challenge such as pursuing peace.

This expectation of pursuing peace does not only apply to war but in our day to day lives. We as individuals are expected to go all out to pursue peace and try to avoid fighting with others, or at the very least go out of our way to initiate a resolution and try to absolve a skirmish when it starts, whether it’s between you and your wife, friend, a fellow Jew, or anyone else, one should go beyond the letter of the law, beyond what’s expected to pursue and keep the peace.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #201

2.      Question: Why is the wife not believed when she says the house or cave filled with smoke and my husband didn’t survive but I miraculously got out but if she says non-Jews or bandits attacked us, my husband was killed, and I was saved she is believed?

  Answer: By the smoking house or cave just as she got out miraculously so to her husband might have. But by the bandits, it’s not normal for them to kill women to the extent that we can say just as she was saved maybe he was saved. See Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 17:52, 54.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #200

1.       Question: Why do we assume the husband is dead if he falls into a pit full of scorpions and snakes but if he was in a crowd where a whole bunch of snakes and scorpions were unleashed upon them the wife can’t testify that her husband died to get remarried?

 Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 17:51) says that if snakes and scorpions were sent into a crowd and a wife said a snake or scorpion bit my husband and he died. She is not believed because perhaps she assumed her husband is like most people that die of a bite.

B. The Chelkas Mechokek (105) points out that this is only if the snakes or scorpions were sent amongst mostly people but if it is known that one of the people was bitten and his wife came and said my husband died of a bite she is believed.

 Answer: If a person fell into a concentration of snakes and scorpions in a pit, we can assume that he could not avoid stepping on them and he was bitten but if a whole slew of snake and scorpions were sent into a crowd of people it’s possible the husband would not get bitten.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 8 halacha 14

Concluding this chapter the Chofetz Chaim warns that it doesn’t make a difference whether someone else or anyone in your household is speaking lashon hara, even your parents you can’t just accept what they said if it is lashon hara.

What’s worse, the Tanna Divei Eliyahu in chapter 21 says if one hears his parents say lashon hara or any other inappropriate speech and acts as if he doesn’t hear them then there is a severe punishment that you all will not fill up your days and years, not necessarily that you’ll die before your time but you might not be able to live life to the fullest. Meaning, maybe a person will get a stroke and won’t be able to function for many years but if he would have stopped this speech in his house then he would have had all his strength and faculties even in his old age until he dies.

However, the Chofetz Chaim is very careful to emphasize that when one rebukes his parents or even anyone in his household it should be done with soft language and emphasizing the severity of the punishment for speaking lashon hara and the reward in the World to Come for not speaking.

Also, the Chofetz Chaim emphasizes that you shouldn’t yell at your parents for transgressing the Torah rather you respectfully and gently say something like “even if what you are saying is true the Torah still says it’s never right to speak lashon hara about your friend” or judge favorably the person being talked about until the speaker will stop talking the evil speech.

Practically speaking the truth is this is very hard to do however by building awareness of the issue hopefully it will deter others especially those in your household from talking lashon hara. For example, putting literature about lashon hara on your coffee table which they can pick up and read on their own if they wish. It might get them curious and eventually more careful of the issue. Also, if you can slip into a conversation about how terrible slander in the media and Politics has become in our world today, people can relate to how detrimental it is, destroying people’s lives and making everyone feel bad they might get the message that slander can be harmful even in our day-to-day life with our friends and those around us. This way making subtle impacts on our family. Another idea might be to start reading the Chofetz Chaim lesson a day at the dinner table or at least on Shabbos with the family together which raises awareness.

Posted on

Korach – Proper Sensitivity Towards Indirect Damage


There is an argument in Maseches Sanhedrin as to whether the 250 followers of Korach who were involved in the revolt against Aharon and Moshe in this week’s Torah portion of Korach will have a share in Olam Haba, The World to Come. Rebbe Akiva is of the opinion that they lost their share in the World to Come, and there is actually an argument whether they earned back their portion in the World To Come on their own merits as Rav Yehuda ben Beseira proves or whether it’s only because Chana, Shmuel Hanavi’s mother, prayed for them, as per Rebbe Eliezer.
The Mishna in Perek Chelek of Sanhedrin states, “The assembly of Korach is not destined to arise for resurrection, as it is stated: ‘And the earth closed upon them’ (Numbers 16:33), meaning in this world, and also: “And they perished from among the assembly” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: About them the verse says: ‘The Lord kills and makes alive; He lowers to the grave, and raises’ (I Samuel 2:6), indicating that the assembly of Korach has a share in the World-to-Come” (Mishna in Sanhedrin 108a). However the gemara there on daf 109b says, “The Sages taught in a baraisa (Tosefta 13:9): The members of the assembly of Korach have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the earth closed upon them” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in this world, and also: “And they perished from among the assembly” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says: Although it says that they perished, they are like a lost item that is sought, ultimately found, and rehabilitated, as it is stated: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out your servant, for I do not forget your mitzvot” (Psalms 119:176).” Rashi there on daf 109b explaining why they deserve a share in the World to come says that they fulfilled all Your mitzvos as it writes, “For all the assembly are all holy” (Bamidbar 16:3).

The Maharsha explains Rebbe Eliezer’s view as follows, “Chana prayed for them because, as Chaza”l in the Medrish Tanchuma (Korach paragraph 5) observes, that Korach saw a chain of good lineage coming from him and this he brought to the argument, but he didn’t know his sons would repent and from them came Shmuel. We see from here that Shmuel was the reason for Korach’s argument on Moshe. For this reason, when Chana says about herself ‘While the barren woman has born seven…The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and raises up’ (Shmuel Alef 2:5, 6). Since out of Your mercy, I was treated graciously for a barren women like myself was able to give birth to 7 children, however these children caused Korach to make a mistake, which is considered indirect damaging therefore [Chana says] I pray for them that You will cause them to die and cause them to come back alive and if they don’t die, rather they went down alive straight into the depths of Gehenom, at least bring them back up.” (Click here fore Hebrew text.)
Chana, Shmuel’s mother, pleaded to Hashem after many barren years to have a child, many many generations after her ancestor, Korach, rebelled against Moshe Rabbeinu. Korach misunderstood his prophecy, seen through Divine inspiration, that he would have righteous people like Shmuel Hanavi come from his offspring; meaning he was deserving of the leadership, not Moshe. Furthermore, Chana did not even pray for Korach, but for the 250 people who were convinced to follow Korach’s lead. Thirdly, they of their own free will chose to follow Korach. Lastly, Hashem miraculously granted her children for according to natural causes she did not have the ability to bear children. Chana’s responsibility for causing the revolt of Korach and his followers by having Shmuel wasn’t just indirect, it was very indirect, seemingly not even her fault at all. So why did she feel responsible to pray on their behalf, which led to Hashem answering her prayers and overturning the ban they had from entering Olam Haba, which seems to imply the prayers and reason for the prayers were legitimate?

We see from here the extent one must feel responsible for another, no matter how indirect your involvement is. If there is even the slightest bit of connection to the party in question then one should feel remorse to inspire himself to at least pray on their behalf. Chana was just praying for a child after the embarrassment of many years of being childless, but when she realized her prayers and the answer to her prayers was what incited the rebellion of Korach and his followers which resulted in their loss in their share in The World To Come she felt compelled to get them out of the rut they were in, even though they chose, albeit mistakenly, to put themselves into it, and not get themselves out of, that rut.

This is the extent of responsibility one should have for his or her actions and the care for his or her fellow Jew.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #199

2. Question: In a case where one co-wife says her husband dies and the other says he was murdered, the Shulchan Aruch poskins that since both said he isn’t alive they are allowed to remarry. The Taz (Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 17:47:60) asks why the Shulchan Aruch has to give the reason “that since according to both of them he is not alive they can remarry” for anyways a co-wife is not believed to say the husband is alive and not allow the other to remarry?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch right before (si’if 46) says that even if one co-wife says the husband died and the other says he did not die the one who says he died can get remarried and the other one cannot because she is just being strict and forbidding herself to the world.

 B. The Taz says the reason why a co-wife isn’t believed for the other co-wife, just herself, is because they naturally hate each other so she is willing to forbid herself to the world just to make her co-wife also forbidden to everyone.

C. One is definitely lying or both.

 Answer: Since both are saying he is dead, just in different manners then it definitely looks like they aren’t angry with each other for if they were one of them would say he is still alive therefore the Shulchan Aruch is saying that since at least one of them is lying but it’s not a total lie so we accept their testimony since they both admit he isn’t alive anymore.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #198

1.    Question: If you are on the way out of your house why can you say a blessing inside on a sucking candy for example and then walk out of the house without needing to say another blessing?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (178:4:31) elaborates that there is a difference between bread which “needs a blessing in its place” where one can technically finish eating in some other house from where he started or can walk out and come back without needing to make a new blessing, whereas fruits or drinks need a new blessing once one left his house where he started eating even if he goes back to it.

B. The Mishna Berura (42) says if they had in mind to have the meal in the place, they said hamotzi and changed their minds to finish on the road, then as long as they can see their original place they can still eat because it’s considered one area. But if they can’t see because they are so far away or because trees blocking then it’s considered changing places and for fruit, you’d have to make a second blessing and for bread technically it’s fine to continue eating but they should ideally say birkas hamazon in the place where they started. However, if they originally had in mind to eat some in their place and the rest in transit then it works even if trees are blocking the way from seeing where they started to eat, because only from house to house does one blessing not work for fruits and one must go back and make a new blessing, and by bread having in mind to eat on the way even ideally works.

Answer: Rav Moshe Feinstein poskins that one only has to make a new blessing when he was originally planning staying at home but if he is on his way out of his house it is as if he blessed on the road and does not need to make a new blessing like any other traveler. This blessing works even for another candy which he might pop into his mouth on the way (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 178:4:42:26).