Author: Rabbi Milder

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).

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 8 halachos 12, 13

Halacha 12: As bad as it is to speak badly about your fellow Jew in front of other Jews it is worse to speak about your fellow Jew in front of non-Jews because there is at least a very good chance other Jews won’t accept what you say or ar least judge the victim favorably but a non-Jew will most likely immediately believe what you say especially if a Jew is willing to speak about another Jew in that fashion it must be true and will spread the world and might even harm the Jew spoken about. What’s worse is if a Jew rattles on a fellow Jew to non-Jews and gets him in trouble. This is so bad that it is equated with someone who denies the Torah and Hashem. The Chofetz Chaim notes that it’s known even back in his time of people who would hire false witnesses and tattletale on their friends as a form of extortion to extricate money from them unlawfully in non-Jewish courts.

Halacha 13: In terms of accepting lashon hara the general rule is you cannot accept any lashon hara as truth about any Jew accept about an apikores and one who tattles on his fellow Jew to non-Jews. Bottom line any Jews which loses his status of being included in “your nation” one can believe lashon hara about them. Even two parties in a fight which you are allowed to SPEAK lashon hara about if it will quiet down the argument, does not mean those listening can accept the lashon hara said as absolute truth, unless it is obvious that it is the truth and by accepting it as true it will help to stop the argument.

Another topic the Chofetz Chaim brought up in a footnote is the issue of making fun of others, i.e., mockery. People tend to make fun of others in very subtle ways so that the victim won’t necessarily pick up on what he said and take revenge and on top of that, the slyer he is the more impressed people will be at his quip and think he’s a smart comedian which will egg him on to say more and make the victim look really bad. There are a number of prohibitions that go along with this issue.

1. Leitzanus: One is forbidden to make a mockery in a negative sense.

2. Onaas Devarim: It’s prohibitive to say things that make people feel bad.

3. Those that listen and laugh are spitting Hashem.

4. Those that stand by and say nothing don’t perform the mitzvah of rebuke.

5. They are also transgressing Flattering a bad person.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #197

Question: Why does Rav Shmuel Wasner poskin that one can throw away newspapers that happen to have words of Torah mixed into their articles?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (154:5:24) quotes the Rambam (lav 65) who says that one who wastes or destroys holy writing transgresses “Don’t do this to Hashem your G-d.”

B. Rav Elyashiv poskins that if you are unsure if there is Torah thoughts in the newspaper then you don’t need to bury it but if you know there is then you should bury it and if you are strict then blessing will come to you.

C. Rav Shmuel Wasner poskins that if there are Torah thoughts within a story then it doesn’t have holiness.

 Answer: Because they are not written to learn Torah with them therefore it doesn’t have any holiness (Dirshu footnote 10).

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #196

1.    Question: Why is one allowed to say the chapter of tehillim of “Hashem Ro’i” after washing but before saying hamotzi but Rav Moshe Feinstein says one cannot say a “grace before the meal” made up by yourself that asks for success in all endeavors after washing but before eating?

 Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (166:1:3) quoting a Zohar says that one has a mitzvah everyday to pray for his food before he eats and should do so before washing but if he forgot and first washed then some say that this prayer or paragraph from tehillim can be said before eating but better to say it after say blessing of hamotzi and take a bite of bread.

B. Normally the halacha is one should not talk between washing and eating because that constitutes a distraction.

 Answer: A prayer on Hashem giving you food is needed as part of the meal so it might not be considered a distraction but a prayer for one’s own success is extra so it’s a distraction and Rav Moshe says if one always says it, it might even constitute the prohibition of adding to the Torah, bal tosif, because one is adding on something on his own accord which the rabbis did not feel a need to do (Dirshu note 4).

Posted on

Bihaaloscha – Artists and Kings

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.

One of our fundamental beliefs of trust in Hashem is that we are expected to go through the motions of putting in our proper effort, but Hashem ultimately produces the results. This cannot be more evidently expressed than by the making of the menorah which is discussed in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Bihaaloscha. “Now this is how the menorah was made: it was hammered work of gold, hammered from base to petal. According to the pattern that Hashem had shown Moshe, so was the menorah made” (Bamidbar 9:4).

The Medrish Rabba relates in the name of Levi the son of Rebbe [Yehuda Hanasi] “…that a pure menorah came down from Heaven. For Hashem said to Moshe, ‘And you shall make a menorah out of pure gold’ (Shemos 25:31). [Moshe] asked, how do we make it? [Hashem] responded, you shall make it hammered [out of one piece]. Nevertheless, it was difficult for Moshe and he went down, and he forgot how to make it. He went up and said, my Master how do I make it? [Hashem] responded, you shall make it hammered [out of one piece]. Nevertheless, it was difficult for Moshe and he came back down, and he forgot. He went back up and said, my Master I forgot it. [Hashem] showed [the menorah] to Moshe and still it was too difficult for him. [Hashem] said to [Moshe], see and do, and He showed him a menorah made out of fire and showed him how it was made. Nevertheless, it was too difficult for Moshe. Hashem said to him, go to Betzalel and he will make it. [Moshe] told Betzalel and he immediately made it. [Moshe] started wondering why he was shown many times how to make it and he still couldn’t figure it out but Betzalel who never saw how to make it, still made it out of his own knowledge. [Moshe answered himself] that Betzalel was standing in the “shade of G-D” when Hashem showed me how to make it. Therefore, when the Holy Temple was destroyed, they hid the menorah. This was one of the  five things hidden, (a) the ark, (b) the menorah, (c) the fire [that came down from Heaven to lick up what was sacrificed on the alter], (d) Divine Providence (i.e. prophecy), (e.) and the keruvim [that were on top of the ark.] And when Hashem will return in His mercy and rebuild the Beis Hamikdash with its sanctuary, He will bring them back to their place in order to rejoice in Yerushalayim as it says, ‘Desert and wasteland shall rejoice over them, and the plain shall rejoice and shall blossom like a rose. It shall blossom and rejoice’ (Yeshayahu 35:1, 2).” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Rada”l perceptively points out that the reason it was difficult for Moshe to make it was in order to hint to us that even complete preparation from any person to place a place where one can instate upon it The Light of Heaven is not within the power of a complete person to perform by himself, as it says, if not for Hashem helping him etc. and this is why it was made by Betzalel who was given Divine intellect from on high to do all the work and not from his heart.
The Rada”l is clearly stating that Hashem purposefully had Moshe put in all his effort for naught and then Betzalel easily made the menorah in order to send the message that while it is worthwhile to try, which Moshe did and did not easily give up, however Hashem is the one that produces the results, especially when it comes to holy spiritual matters like building the menorah. Also, to clearly prove the point that only Hashem produces the results, He had Betzalel, who was not directly shown how to make the menorah, orchestrate making it.

The Maharz”u seems to have a different understanding of why Betzalel was able to make the menorah so easily but Moshe had a lot of difficulty. However, when scrutinizing this commentary one will see it is really the same theme as the Rada”l. The Maharz”u is very much bothered by  why Betzalel was referred to as standing in the “shade of G-D,” for in fact Moshe was in the “shade of G-D” on the mountain with Hashem and still didn’t know; so how did Betzalel know? Is it possible that he was more in the “shade of G-D” than Moshe who got closer than anyone else on the mountain? The Maharz”u answers that maybe when it says that Betzalel was in the “shade of G-D” it hints to a quality on a level in the matter of working on making the utensils of the mishkan. Betzalel had something more than Moshe had, for he was an artist (or architect) and it’s important to have in mind that Moshe was the king and he did not do anything by himself; rather all actions were done upon his command and direction. This was clearly indicated by all the work that Betzalel and the sages did, and also by the menorah. Nevertheless, the credit went to Moshe for building the mishkan, its utensils, including the menorah, as it says, “And the mishkan of Hashem that Moshe made in the desert.”
Moshe had reached the 49th level of wisdom, one notch below the perfection of all wisdom. He was certainly physically fit enough to make anything, for he assembled the mishkan all by himself, and he even knew how to do hands-on work, because he used to help his fellow Jews in the slave pits of Egypt to lighten their burden. Even though now he is king and almost all the jobs are done for him, it does not seem from the medrish that it was beneath his dignity to make the menorah; on the contrary he tried and failed four time! So, with all his knowledge and worldly experience, why did he fail?

The Maharz”u says it was because he was not an artist like Betzalel and he had plenty of responsibilities because he was the king and he would not have the time to figure out how to be an artist or architect. For Betzalel, it was natural and easy for him to make the menorah because Hashem gave him that artistic gift, to be good at working with his hands;, that was his purpose in life; he used it to the best of his ability. Moshe’s purpose was to be king, the authority over everyone else; so as much as he tried, he just didn’t have the feel of how to make the menorah since he wasn’t naturally an artist or architect. No matter how much wisdom and intellect Hashem granted Moshe He still didn’t give him the knack to sculpt things. Being artistic and handy just wasn’t Moshe’s purpose in life, so Hashem didn’t grant him that ability.

Moshe thought that with all his wisdom he might be able to figure it out since Hashem did command him to make it. So he put in all his efforts to try and not give up so easily, but it was not with in his natural talents to accomplish making the menorah. So ultimately, Moshe had to give it over to Betzalel and direct him to make the menorah since Hashem did grant Betzalel the talents to make it.

This too shows that we put in the efforts but ultimately Hashem causes the results to happen.