Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #168

1.       Question: If a husband had two wives die from childbirth why can he marry another one but if two sons die from bris milah his third son cannot have a bris?

Background:

A.      The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 9:2) says that if a man had two wives die, that does not mean he can’t get married again. Even though if a woman had two husbands die, she isn’t allowed to remarry a third time because there is an assumption that she has bad mazel and any man she will marry will die, as stated in si’if 1 (See Beis Shmuel 9:1:1 there).

B.      The father is “blamed” for the deaths of his sons and once two died we assume the third will die as well from circumcision.

 Answer: We can assume that the father gave his sons “weak genes” so that they physically can’t handle the bris but that would not affect his wives as the Beis Shmuel says in si’if katan 7.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 Halacha 5

There is a time when you are allowed to believe lashon hara as truth in a situation where rumors spread by numerous people which don’t stop for at least a day and half across the city that someone who is known to be bad because he does a sin out of spite of Hashem that every Jew knows is a sin, like adultery, murder, robbery and the like and now there’s rumors he did it again or did something else wrong. For example, if a person is known to be an robner and rumors go around the city that he did it again or that this time he killed someone, then people are allowed to believe and even take action against him like insulting him and speaking bad about him and his family like if a child was born out of wedlock with a married woman. These rumors can only be believed if they were started by multiple people and they were not people who are known to hate him. Because if they are his enemy then we don’t believe rumors that they start even the rumors don’t stop, like it goes viral over the internet, still they are not believed if started by known enemies, those that dislike him because it just might not be true. However, if random people or those who know him respectfully start talking about crimes he has done and the rumors continue then it’s permissible to believe them, repeat them and act upon them. The reason for this is because the Torah says you can’t speak lashon hara which would include accepting it only upon those Jews who are considered part of “your nation” but if they decided to remove the Yoke of Heaven and do these outlandish crimes then they aren’t part of “your nation” anymore. They are still Jews but halachas don’t apply to them like not speaking lashon hara and you don’t have to rebuke them because there is only a mitzvah to rebuke those part of “your nation” but if they decided to rebel then you shouldn’t rebuke them because they won’t listen at the verse in Proverbs says: “Don’t rebuke a scoffer.”

Posted on

Bo – Character Traits Effecting Proper Manners


There is an apropos saying for a Ralbag in this week’s Torah portion of Bo: “What came first the chicken or the egg?”

When the Jewish people had their first Pesach seder right before they left Egypt, Hashem told them exactly how to eat at the seder, “And this is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste it is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” (Shemos 12:11).

The lesson the Ralbag learns from here is that it’s not right for travelers to prolong their meal and sit comfortably at it. Rather they should eat like travelers so that they can finish their journey with speed and alacrity (zrizus). This is learned from the way Hashem commanded that the Passover sacrifice shall be eaten; meaning, with their loins girded, shoes on their feet, staff in their hand, and that they should eat with haste so that they will appear like travelers. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

One would think that at this moment in time when the Jewish people were ready to place their complete trust and faith in Hashem for taking them out of Egypt, they would have their last meal, which was dedicated to their freedom and redemption in a manner which would show tranquility, liberty, and calm. They anyway weren’t leaving for a few hours until the morning. Besides that, at any meal, how is it proper manners to eat “half out of your seat,” with your traveling shoes on your feet and backpack on your back, eating in a rush? Isn’t it better at any meal, at any time, to sit in your chair with both hands and feet in front of you, eating over the table calmly and attentively? Also, what does zrizus, speed and alacrity, have to do with eating a meal? If you eat too fast you might choke!

It would seem that there are two standards of proper manners when it comes to eating a meal. One is at home or at a location where the meal is conducted with an aura of calm and collection. It would be inappropriate to eat in haste, half out of your seat. There are manners which dictate how to properly eat at a table.

However, when you are in transit, the proper manners are to eat quickly and to keep on going in order to reach your destination as swiftly as possible. Now, zrizus isn’t just speed, it is also alacrity, doing something in an efficient manner but not dawdling. It would seem that eating in the normal calm manner as one would do at his house, or any other normal meal would be a sign of laziness and serenity which one should not have when traveling since there is a destination to reach. Therefore, proper etiquette of how to eat a meal is different.

So, on the contrary by following the way Hashem told them to eat which was teaching them a lesson and preparing them for their journey which they would start in a few hours, that in fact showed the ultimate belief and trust in Hashem.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #167

2.    Question: Why does a lack of kavanah for making the tzitzis for the sake of the mitzvah a problem as soon as the strings are put into the hole but this concept of making it properly in order and not out of order and just falling into place is only an issue once you start tying the strings, especially if they are learned out of the same verse?

Background:

A.   An example of out of order would be folding and pushing through one big string through the hole then cutting it into 8 strings so that they can be tied.

B.   Another example is tying the strings before the corners were made into real corners instead of rounded.

 Answer: The mitzvah process starts as soon as the strings start going through the hole so you need proper intent but you didn’t actually start making something until you start tying so have a bit more time to get it into the right order.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #166

1.    Question: According to the Levush what is the difference whether one corner of tzitzis broke and you only have to retie that corner, but if one corner was tied when the corners were rounded and then all four corners were made pointed and the rest of the corners were tied properly, you still have to redo all of them again?

Background:

A. There is a concept by tzitzis that they must be made in the right order, not that everything is done and automatically the mitzvah falls into place once it is all sorted.

B. Example of the wrong way is tying tzitzis on a three-corner garment then cutting a fourth corner and tying it.  You have to retie   all four corners because the four corners must be there first then tie them all.

 C. The Magen Avraham questioned why the 3-corner case was a problem since the other corners were tied properly why should all the tzitzis be invalid since one was? Furthermore, the Machatzis Hashekel asks why it is no different than one tzitzis breaking, why isn’t it that the tzitzis on the other 3 corners are also invalidated and they all would have to be retied?

D. The Levush does say that all the tzitzis strings were made in an invalid state and stayed invalid because it was automatically set not made right, from the start.

E. The tallis is part of the mitzvah of tzitzis because the tallis and tzitzis become one piece of clothing.

Answer:  Once one corner was made out of order then the whole garment is invalidated even if the other three tzitzis strings were tied after the fourth corner was cut out so all of them have to be redone but if all strings were tied properly on a kosher garment and then one string broke that does not mean all four have to be restrung because the garment is still valid, only the one string broke so only that one must be fixed.

Posted on

Vaera – Speaking to the Heart of the Issue

Hashem gave Moshe three signs to show that he was sent by Hashem to free the Jewish people: (1) the staff turning into a snake, (2) Moshe’s hand getting leprosy and then turning back to normal, and (3) turning water into blood. He showed these signs to the Jewish people as we saw towards the end of last week’s Torah portion of Shemos. But in this week’s portion of Vaera he only shows Pharaoh the wonder of turning the staff into a snake (or crocodile).

The Torah refers to what Moshe showed the Jews as signs, but what he showed Pharaoh as a wonder. The Sforno says that “a wonder comes to demonstrate the greatness of the sender, that it is proper to hearken to His voice. A sign, however, testifies to the authenticity of the messenger. That is why Moshe performed ‘signs’ in the presence of the Jews, who did not doubt the greatness and ability of the Sender but questioned whether the messenger was authentic. Pharaoh, however, had doubts regarding the Sender, and even denied His existence, as he said, ‘I know not Hashem’ (Shemos 5:2). That is why he asks for a ‘wonder’ to authenticate the greatness of the Sender, in a manner which will demonstrate that He is worthy to be listened to. It is not unprecedented for the same object to be used as a sign and a wonder for different people” (Sforno on Shemos 7:9).

The Torah had said right before Moshe’s first confrontation with Pharaoh, “Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon, saying, “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Provide a sign for yourselves,’ you shall say to Aharon, ‘Take your staff, [and] cast [it] before Pharaoh; it will become a serpent (crocodile)’ ” (Shemos 7:8, 9). The Chizkuni observes that “this portion was already mentioned in Shemos, ‘see all the signs that I have placed in your hand and perform them before Pharaoh,’ (Shemos 4:21). It was repeated here because of the new thing that happened. What new thing happened? He only performed the staff turning into a serpent (crocodile) before Pharaoh.”

The Chizkuni, explains what a “wonder” is by quoting Rashi saying, “a sign to make [it] known that there is power in the One who is sending you;” meaning, He has ability and control. This message was sent to Pharaoh, as the Chizkuni says, because “Pharaoh was haughty in his own eyes and called himself a crocodile, as it says, ‘O Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great crocodile’ (Yechezkel 29:3). Hashem said to Moshe, ‘Go and tell Pharaoh, just as this staff turned into a crocodile and swallowed up staffs, and in the end turned back into a dried piece of wood, so to you swallowed up 12 staffs of the tribes of Israel and your end will be like a dry piece of wood, dead.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Ibn Ezra in facts points out that Moshe’s staff turned into a snake for the Jews but a crocodile for Pharaoh in order to get this very message across to him. It would seem, according to the Chizkuni, that Hashem originally intended to show the 3 signs to Pharaoh as well, but something changed, a specific message had to be sent to Pharaoh, so only one sign was needed. What changed and why not give all 3 signs anyway; if one doesn’t work then maybe another one will get the message across? As the saying goes, “throw everything at him, including the kitchen sink, and maybe something will stick?!”

We must say that Hashem originally intended to give all three signs to Pharaoh through Moshe, as he did to the Jews in order to prove the authenticity of the messenger, Moshe. Although Pharaoh fancied himself as a god, and called himself the Great Crocodile of the Nile, the entire time he had the potential to reverse his opinion and acknowledge the supremacy of the Almighty Blessed Be He. Hashem gave Pharaoh a chance to the very end, right before Moshe confronted Pharaoh, to choose out of his own free choice to make that acknowledgement. But once Hashem saw Pharaoh was not going to realize this of his own free will, He told Moshe to show Pharaoh one wonder which had a specific message.

We see from here that when trying to get through to someone to teach them a lesson the best way is to pinpoint the exact issue and focus in on that, hitting the nail on the head, and hopefully the message will come across loud and clear. That’s better than throwing everything at him and hoping that something will stick.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #165

2. Question: Why does the Beis Shmuel say that a kohen can live in the same house as his ex-wife who he found to be adulterous one day and divorced but can’t even live in the same courtyard as his ex-wife, without their children constantly with them, who was captured by non-Jews and he was forced to divorce?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:9) says that a wife of a kohen who became forbidden to him because she was captured, since the matter is really in question whether she was forced to have relations with one of her capturers he is permitted to live in the same courtyard as her as long as their children and household are always there to make sure they don’t do anything inappropriate.

Answer: The Beis Shmuel (16) says that since the husband is disgusted by his adulterous wife then we aren’t afraid he will go back to her but the wife of a kohen who was captured did nothing wrong, she just might have been forced to be with her captors which prohibits him to her because he has a special status of a kohen therefore we are worried that if they are alone together for a period of time they will be with each other because they still have feelings for each other and she is not disgusting in his eyes.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #164

1.    Question: The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 32) asks why are partners liable for working their animal on Shabbos if the Torah says your (singular) animal shall not be worked on Shabbos?

Background:

 A. By Teruma it says your (singular) grain which the gemara in Chullin 135b says that one is only obligated in the mitzvah of teruma if you own the grain by yourself not with partners. So to by tzitzis it says your (singular) garment is obligated in tzitzis, only if it belongs to one person not if the garment belongs to two partners.

 B. The Sforno (Shemos 23:12) says the reason why the verse mentions resting your ox and donkey in the same verse as your maidservant and the convert is because when the animals rest then your maidservant and the convert will get to rest as well.

Answer: Even though the verse sounds like you have to own the whole animal but in logic it is not true because working your animal will come to people themselves working so all animals must rest including if co-owned with a Non-Jew. But this problem doesn’t apply to teruma, tzitzis, peach, or lulav therefore they can’t be owned by partners because the verse indicates they have to be owned by one person.

Posted on

Shemos – Not Fighting Violence with Violence


We begin this week the second book of the Torah with the portion of Shemos, in which we are introduced to Moshe Rabbeinu. Although Moshe grew up in Pharaoh’s palace, he knew he was a Jew and took care of his brethren in the slave pits. In one such episode the Torah relates, “Now it came to pass in those days that Moshe grew up and went out to his brothers and looked at their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brothers. He turned this way and that way, and he saw that there was no man; so he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. He went out on the second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were quarreling, and he said to the wicked one, ‘Why are you going to strike your friend’” (Shemos 2:11-13)? The Torah then tells us how Pharaoh eventually found out what happened and wanted to execute Moshe. The Medrish even relates how the executioner was about to chop off Moshe’s head, but his neck miraculously turned to stone, the blade broke, Moshe was able to free himself and flee.
There are many lessons to be learned from this episode. The Ralbag learns that it is appropriate for a person to watch over his brethren and fight as best as he possibly can against those who show acts of violence against them. By doing this the nation will be stronger and more protected when helped every little bit. We see this from Moshe Rabbeinu who had such an intense will to fight for the plight of the Jews. When he saw the violence perpetrated by the Egyptian, Moshe got up and smote him, placing himself in mortal danger and ultimately being forced to run away.

The Ralbag also learns that when a person sees two people fighting, he should put every effort into removing the arguments and fights from between them so that they won’t hurt each other. All the more so if the people fighting were your own brethren. We see this from the fact the when Moshe Rabbeinu saw two Jews fighting he put in the effort to rebuke them in order to diffuse the argument and fight from between them.

The Ralbag also learns a lesson that it is appropriate for a man of perfection to be emotionally enflamed by acts of violence no matter who it was against, and to put efforts into eliminating them. For this reason the Torah records this story, to show us the emotional charge Moshe had upon witnessing this violence and the power of his bravery in eradicating it, as well as his chivalrous heart. These qualities are what should be permeating a prophet. (Click here fore Hebrew text.)
Rashi speaks about how when Moshe saw the Egyptian taskmaster striking the Jew, he saw that there was no man destined to be descended from the Egyptian who would become a convert, and only then did he kill the Egyptian. This seems to imply that had Moshe seen through Divine Intervention that there would have been a convert in the future coming from this person he would not have killed the Egyptian though Jewish Law allows one to defend someone else from attack by another, even if it means killing the attacker. However, if the victim can be saved without killing anyone, he should try. Presumably here Moshe was the prince of Egypt and could have told the Egyptian to let the Jew go, or at least wounded the Egyptian without killing him. But because he saw that there was no worth to this person and the Jew’s life was being threatened, Moshe chose to kill the Egyptian. (Practically though people nowadays can’t really see into the future about a person’s lineage and cannot make the same type of decision as Moshe did unless he feels there is no other way to save the victim’s life). What the Egyptian did was called an act of violence, but Moshe’s response was not considered an act of violence, rather a show of force. We see from here that a person is allowed to use lethal force to defend others when need be, and to eradicate evil from our midst.

However, the next day Moshe saw two Jews fighting and Rashi, quoting a Medrish Rabbah (1:29) points out that these two Jews were Dasan and Aviram. They were the ones who would save save some of the manna [when they had been forbidden to leave it overnight, as in Shemos 16:19, 20]. They also complained a couple of times that it was better to go back to Egypt then to be in the desert, see Bamidbar 14:4, as well as at the Red Sea before it split. Ultimately, they were also part of the rebellion of Korach and were swallowed up with their families by the earth. The Medrish relates that at this time they were trying to kill each other and though it had not come to blows yet before Moshe stopped and reprimanded them. But as the Medrish, Rashi, and in fact the Ralbag both point out, based on a gemara in Sanhedrin 58b, that even just for the effort, i.e. just raising one’s hand to hit his friend, a person is considered wicked.

Why didn’t Moshe hand over the same fate to at least one of these people as he did the Egyptian taskmaster? He saw they were ready to kill each other, even catching one of them raising his hand to smite the other. If he was able to see into the future that nothing would be coming out of the Egyptian in terms of merit, surely he had the ability to see the trouble that Dasan and Aviram would cause amongst the Jews, or at least see that nothing meritorious would come out of them and their families. In fact, the Gur Aryeh says about Dasan and Aviram that they were proponents of evil, namely they were constantly argumentative. So why didn’t Moshe eliminate the problem from the start when he had the opportunity, as he did with the Egyptian? Then all the problems Dasan and Aviram caused in the desert would never have happened.

We must say that Moshe saw that there was zero hope for this Egyptian, either for him to change his ways or his descendants to be better. However, Dasan and Aviram, as evil as they were, and in fact they were never to change, still in all Moshe felt that because they were part of his kinship, he had the potential to get through to them one day, and it was better just to rebuke them in order to dissipate the fight, rather then to get rid of the threat.

This, the Ralbag proves is a sign of a true prophet, one who can lead his people, who has the strength and drive to defend them against evil but also the heart and will to handle the threats from within with the patience to try to change and arouse them to repent.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 3

There are two reasons why you can’t believe slander/lashon hara even if you hear two or more people saying the same thing.

1. Is that if it is said for no good reason then the speakers are bad people and how can you believe what a bad person said verses the person being spoken about who is assumed to be a kosher person.

2. Is that even if what they are saying is to warn others of impending danger that doesn’t give anyone the right to believe what they are saying as truth, only two witnesses in court who are official witnesses are believed unequivocally.

Any other time one can and should only be cautious take the proper precautions to protect yourself and research and investigate the matter to see if it is really true or not.

The Gemara in Pesachim 113b says that a rebbe if he feels he could trust his student as if he is two in order to stay away from someone who is doing inappropriate things according to the student. The Chofetz Chaim explains that this is a special circumstance where the relationship between rabbi and student is so close and trustworthy that this student is like two witnesses testifying in court and is therefore unequivocally believed but in general two people or more are not believed for what they say if it is lashon hara since slander usually leads to, comes with lies or at least leaving out information or exaggerating so in normal circumstances it cannot be believed no matter how many people say it it can only be taken into consideration as a concern, investigated and take proper precautions.