Author: Rabbi Milder

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.

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.