Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Chayei Sarah – The Impact of a Kind Deed


Yishmael was prophesied and known to be a pere adam, a wild man, as the Torah says, “And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be upon all, and everyone’s hand upon him, and before all his brothers he will dwell” (Breishis 16:12). He was the predecessor of the Arab world.
The medrish PirkeiDiRebbe Eliezer (perek 32) mentions that “there were six people whose names were given to them before they were born, Yitzchak, Yishmael, Moshe Rabbeinu, Shlomo, Yoshiyahu, and the name of moshiach, whom G-D will bring speedily in our days… How do we know Yishmael? For it says, ‘And you will name him Yishmael’ (Breishis 16:11). Why was he called Yishmael? For in the future Hashem will listen to the groaning of the nation from what the children of Yishmael will do to them in The Land at the end of days, that is why he is called Yishmael [which literally means G-D will listen], as it says, ‘G-D will listen and He will answer’ (Tehillim 55:20).” The commentary, Bayis HaGadol points out that the pasuk says why he was called Yishmael, for an angel said to his mother, Hagar, when she was originally sent away from Avraham and Sarah’s house, “Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Ishmael, for Hashem has heard your affliction” (Breishis 16:11). However, Avraham, on his own called him Yishmael as well because of the prophesy he saw at the end of days of Yishmael’s descendants causing Avraham’s descendants [through Yitzchak] to moan and be heard by G-D. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Bayis HaGadol then references to an early chapter, perek 30 in Pirkei DiRebbe Eliezer. There it says, “And furthermore Rebbe Yishmael said, there will be 3 wars of riots that the children of Yishmael will do in The Land at the end of days. As it says (Yeshayahu 21:15), ‘For, because of the swords they wandered;’ and swords refer to war. One will be in the forest as it says there, ‘because of the raging [battle] sword.’ One will be in the sea, ‘because of the bent bow’ (the Bayis HaGadol explains that battles at sea must be fought with arrows not swords). And one will be in the great metropolis within Rome (some editions have in their text “Aram” which was around the Syrian/Iranian area), which will be more intense than the other two [battles] as it says there, ‘and because of the pressure of war.’ And from there the son of David will sprout out and will watch the destruction of the wicked, and from there he will go to Eretz Yisrael as it says, ‘Who is this coming from Edom, with soiled garments, from Bozrah, this one [who was] stately in his apparel, girded with the greatness of his strength? I speak with righteousness, great to save’ (Yeshayahu 63:1).” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Although this medrish is very esoteric and we won’t fully understand what it meant until after the fact, we see clearly that Yishmael and his descendants were and are like “a thorn in the flesh.” Yet the last Medrish Rabba in this week’s Torah portion of Chayei Sarah depicts one lasting kindness that Yishmael did. The Maharz”u points out that this medrish is of the opinion Yishmael was wicked his entire life and never repented. Therefore, the medrish asks why he was deserving of having his age of death and lineage of descendants spelled out at the end of this week’s Torah portion?

The Maharz”u aptly further points out that the Torah wanted to spell out his age of when he died in order to be able to calculate Yaakov Avinu’s age, which could have been mentioned in a later portion but it was mentioned here because of a kindness that Yishmael did to Avraham Avinu, his father. The Medrish says, “What did the Torah see to write the age of this wicked person here? For he came from a distant part of the desert to be kind to his father [by paying his last respects and helping to bury him after he passed on].” The Rada”l explains further that Yishmael lived in the desert of Paran, which is a vast desert in the south of Israel and Yishmael might have lived in a place called Gadgod which is near Etzion Gaver, in the southeast by the Land of Edom. He traveled all the way to Beer Sheva, where Avraham Avinu passed away, to pay his last respects and do a kindness to his father. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
This is quite astonishing! It would seem that Yishmael was really not deserving of having his age or lineage of his descendants listed at all in the Torah, except for the fact that it would have helped in calculating Yaakov’s age. Which means it should have been mentioned much later, like by the Torah portion of Vayigash or Vayechi; yet because of this kindness that he performed, the Torah, when formulated within earthly time by Hashem and given to Moshe at Har Sinai, wrote Yishmael’s age and lineage because of the kindness he did. And it was written next to Avraham Avinu’s death just to hint to the kindness this wicked person, whose descendants have not been any better throughout the generations, had done. How powerful is even a simple act of kindness in the eyes of Hashem!

Think about it! Yishmael didn’t even do a majorly helpful act of kindness. He just said goodbye to his father on his deathbed and attended his funeral, probably even to help bury him, even though Yitzchak himself with many of his servants and followers could have done it themselves without Yishmael’s help. Yet it was worth “changing” the entire Torah just to point out this act of kindness!
If this is how an act of kindness of a wicked person is treated all the more so can one imagine the value and importance of every single kindness a fellow Jew does, a prince of the King Of All Kings, what an impact it must have in the “eyes” of Hashem.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #239

 Question: What’s the difference between birkas hamazon and shemone esray? Why does the Ramban brought in the Magen Avraham (192:1) hold that if you only know one paragraph (blessing) of birkas hamazon you can say that even if you don’t know the rest but Beur Halacha in siman 593 says in the name of the Nahar Shalom that if you know only one paragraph of Shemone esray then you can’t just say that one paragraph for the prayer of shemone esray?

 Background:

A. The Beur Halacha also says that the Magen Avraham (593:2) who seems to argue by Shemone esray really hold that you do fulfill a Torah level mitzvah of praying even if you just say one paragraph of shemone esray but you don’t fulfill the mitzva of shemone esray where as you would fulfill the mitzvah of birkas hamazon if you only say one paragraph.

B. Though Shemone Esray is made of 18 different blessings it’s different than the 3 different blessings of Birkas hamazon. 

Answer: Shemone esray the concept of asking mercy from Hashem and therefore it’s a prayers which is considered one unit so if you leave something out then the unit if prayer is lacking and doesn’t count but Birkas hamazon isn’t a prayer, it’s a bunch of blessings so one doesn’t effect the other according to the Ramban. The Magen Avraham does bring down the view of the Rif that all blessings of Birkas hamazon are connected so if you only know one then you can’t say Birkas hamazon at all.

Posted on

Vayera – Defining the Truth

 Hashem by definition is completely truthful. This is proven in the Orchos Tzadikim at the beginning of The Gate of Truth: “Truth: The soul is created from the place of the Holy Spirit, as it is written (Breishis 2:7): ‘And He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life.’ It is hewn from a place of purity and created from the Celestial Radiance, from the Throne of Glory. And there is no falsehood above, in the place of the Holy of Holies, but all is truth, as it is written (Yirmiyahu 10:10): ‘And Hashem G-D is truth.’ I have found it written (Shemos 3:14): ‘I will be what I will be’ [אהיה אשר אהיה], and (Yirmiyahu 10:10) ‘Hashem G-D is truth; He is the Living G-D and the Eternal King.’ Derive from this that G-D, the Holy One Blessed Be He is truth; for the word [אהיה], whose gematria [numerical value] is 21, is found 21 times [21×21=441 which is the gematria of emes, truth.] And the gematria of the word אהיה itself is 21 [ so that אהיה אשר אהיה, being understood as a compounding of אהיה, would, in itself, give the same result.] G-D made man to be just [see Koheles 7:29], and Shabbos 55a: ‘The seal of the Holy One Blessed Be He is truth.'” (Click here for Hebrew text.) However, in this week’s Torah portion of Vayera we find a very puzzling episode. Sarah just overheard one of the 3 angels who were visiting, saying that she would have a child one year hence, and the pesukim say (Breishis18:11-13): “Now Avraham and Sarah were old, well on in years; the manner of women had ceased to be with Sarah. And Sarah laughed at herself saying, ‘After I have withered, I shall again have delicate skin. And my husband is old!’ Then Hashem said to Avraham, ‘Why is it that Sarah laughed, saying: Shall I in truth bear a child, though I have aged?'” The Medrish Rabba (Vayera 48:18) points out, “Bar Kafra said, peace is so great that even the verses speak in falsehood in order to ensure peace between Avraham and Sarah. And Sarah laughed at herself saying, ‘After I have withered, I shall have delicate skin. And my husband is old!’ To Avraham this was not said, rather ‘why did Sarah laugh saying how will I give birth for I am old.’ The verse did not speak the same as what Sarah said, ‘for my master is old’ but rather ‘for I am old’. “ (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Yefeh Toar  observes that the medrish did not interpret Sarah’s statement as a question, which means she called herself old and withered and Avraham just old. Hashem said in place of her statement that she said ‘I am old’ because that is what her whole statement about herself really meant, and Hashem didn’t bother mentioning that she said ‘my master is old’ because He was just summarizing what she said, which in that case means that Hashem really did not lie at all. However, the Yefeh Toar points out that the medrish goes out of its way to clearly explain that Hashem actually changed Sarah’s words for the sake of peace. If that is the case, then how do we explain that Hashem lied or spoke falsehood? The Yefeh Toar specifically writes that Hashem changed His words, and in fact the medrish says the Torah writes it as if He spoke falsehood, in order to teach us a lesson in the importance of peace. How is this possible? 
Nevertheless, I heard from a talmid chacham, Rabbi Yitzchok Kolsky shlit”a, that if by changing words it will result in doing Hashem’s will, then those words are the truth, it is not a lie. Hashem’s will is to ensure peace amongst people especially between husband and wife; therefore changing what she said which appears to be falsehood is warranted and is therefore considered truthful. However, that does not mean a person can always lie for the sake of peace, because people pick up on it and it backfires a lot, which can make things worse and is obviously not the will of Hashem.

There is a story I heard of a couple who came home after a trip Thursday night and her mother, who was recovering at home from a procedure, offered to make Shabbos meals for them. The daughter said no, she had everything she needed, even though she actually had nothing prepared for Shabbos, as she didn’t want to trouble her mother who had a procedure. Yet she also felt wrong for just lying to her mother. Her husband decided to ask his rabbi if she did the right thing. The rabbi thought it was a good question and asked Rabbi Fuerst shlit”a what he thought. Rabbi Fuerst shlit”a said that one is allowed to lie if it will improve his or her middos [character traits]. He quoted a gemara in Bava Metzia 23b which states there are 3 circumstances (besides for the sake of peace) that one is allowed to lie. One reason is out of proper character, for example, in terms of a tractate of gemara, if one is asked if he is fluent in a certain subject matter, he can lie and deny it out of humility. For this reason, Rabbi Fuerst said that because this wife was respecting her mother, and was concerned for her health, she was allowed to lie.

 However, the Orchos Tzadikim in the conclusion of The Gate of Falsehood, after quoting this gemara concludes, “And in all these cases where the sages permitted deviation from the truth, if one can manage without lying it is better that he do so. For example, if he is asked, ‘Do you know this tractate?’ He can answer, ‘Do you really think I know it?’ If he can push off the questioner in this way without lying, it is better that he does so rather than lie outright. He should follow this practice in all his affairs. If he does so, happy is he and happy his begetter.” It seems clear from all this that one has to be extremely careful when deviating from the truth, and the litmus test is whether one is confident that he is doing the Will of Hashem. If he is doing the will of Hashem, then that is considered the truth; but that is very hard to figure out. Therefore one must be extremely careful in this matter, and not use it as an excuse to lie, except in very rare and well-calculated circumstances.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #238

Question: Why by pikuach nefesh, saving someone’s life who might be in danger, let’s say on Shabbos, we are not concerned for the majority and if for example a building collapsed and most people inside are gentiles but there might be a Jew there we are allowed to search for him on Shabbos but when it comes to dinei nefashos, judging life and death circumstances we do rely on the majority to help with two witnesses in order to sentence someone to death, but isn’t this a case of pikuach nefesh also for if one must save a person at all costs one definitely can’t kill someone? (Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 225)

Background:

A. The mitzvah to save a Jew’s life even at the expense of transgressing mitzvos is based on verse of “vichai bahem” that the mitzvos are to live by not die by. The mitzvah to sentence one to death if he transgressed a sin of that severity is “uviarta hara mikirbecha” you shall wipe out the evil from amongst you.

B. By pikuach nefesh there are two factors, the mitzvah of saving a life, and the mitzvah being transgressed. By dinei nefashos there are two factors: the mitzvah of eliminating evil and the mitzvah of saving a Jew’s life.

 C. In both cases where is the source of the doubt in question and which one is the after effect that just has to be taken into consideration?

 Answer: In terms of saving one’s life the source of the question is whether there is a mitzvah now to save one’s life and the byproduct is desecrating Shabbos so the verse of “you shall live by them” resolves the main question at hand and says Shabbos should be transgressed even if there is a small possibility that it’s saving a Jew, just like if one definitely knows he is saving a Jew. But by laws that concern capital punishment where the question is whether to blot out evil or not then if the majority resolves that question then which is the main question at hand then there is no doubt of needing to save a life since that’s just a byproduct of what the real issue is that is wiping out evil, which the majority poskined can be done so the minority issue of saving a life doesn’t exist anymore.

Posted on

Lech Lecha – Unity: Acknowledging Your Piece of the Puzzle

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 Rosh on this week’s Torah portion of Lech Lecha explains a gemara in Nedarim 32a that discusses an argument about why Avraham was punished by his descendants being enslaved for 210 years in Egypt. Shmuel says it is because he questioned Hashem’s decree when he said “How am I to know that I will inherit it” (Breishis 15:8). The Rosh explains that the way he expressed himself, the words that came out of his mouth, was inappropriate (not that he actually felt in his heart what he said). (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The other answer given by Rebbe Abahu in the name of Rebbe Elazar is because he recruited Torah scholars to aid him in the war against the four kings, as the Torah states “and he mobilized his trained men, those who were born in his house” (Breishis 14:14). The Rosh explains that Avraham Avinu was punished for sending his students, who he taught mitzvos to, as his vanguard in war. (Click here for Hebrew text of gemara Nedarim.)
Avraham joined the war of the four kings verse the five kings in order to save his nephew Lot who was captured. It was a personal matter of life and death and the Ra”n in Nedarim says the problem was that he took his students who he taught Torah into war, and Rashi there describes that he taught them Torah like a person who poured liquid from one vessel into another, that is how he taught them Torah. These people were obviously close confidantes of Avraham who he trusted as the best soldiers to weaponize for war to save his nephew, Lot. Why should he be punished for the decision that he made? Anyone else that he could have recruited, let’s say his normal servants (besides Eliezer who was his most trusted servant, which one opinion in that gemara holds was the only other person who joined Avraham in battle.) or outside friends or mercenaries, who says they could be trusted? His students were the closest ones to him who could be most trusted; so why was Avraham punished?

It would seem that those that were learning Torah were meant to be staying and learning. Each person has a purpose in life and has their own role in contributing to the fight. The Torah student’s role is to accrue merits for the fighters through their learning and prayers that brings spiritual protection to the fighters on the front line.  Taking them away from their main role, on some slight, minuscule level, was a lack of faith in Hashem’s choice for giving individualized purpose to every person. In fact, the Rosh in Nedarim says the real sin was clearly stated as being questioning Hashem, as Shmuel said but Rebbe Abahu in the name of Rebbe Elazer held that this sin of sending the Torah learners out to war was the precursor punishment that allowed Avraham to fall into the trap of questioning Hashem of saying the expression “bameh aidah“.

We see how important it is for everyone to acknowledge that each individual has a certain purpose in the world, to recognize that purpose and to excel at it as much as he possibly can because that is Hashem’s destiny for that individual.

Sending the Torah student to war would be like requiring someone to always walk on their hands. Granted it’s possible and the more one works at it the better he’ll become but a person is not supposed to walk on their hand. Hands are made to work with, and feet are made to walk with, each one has their own purpose, and one will be a much better walker or runner by foot than by hand no matter how much practice he has.

It is possible that some people’s purpose is to learn Torah and to go out into the battlefield to fight. Everyone’s purpose is not black or white, it could be gray, but the point is that one has to figure out and then excel at their own purpose in life and others cannot criticize if someone is doing something different than them if that is supposed to be their purpose in life since everyone is different and has their own unique role in the world.

We are all like a piece of a puzzle, each piece is different and belongs in a specific place some pieces are similar to each so you know they belong in that area but they each have their own unique role, and when unified the complete picture can be seen and understood.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #237

Question: Why does the Ra”n (Beitza 17a “umiha”) hold that if one needs 2 figs to save one’s life and he must pick them off the tree on shabbos and he has a branch with 2 figs or a branch with 3 figs in front of him but he cuts down the branch with 3 figs on shabbos, he transgressed a Torah level prohibition (arguing on the R’I and Rashba who say it’s rabbinic) because adding to the measure is a Torah level issue, and though he cut only one branch but it had the 3rd unneeded fig then he sinned and yet if one steals a sack of 100 dollar bills why did he transgress the prohibition of stealing once and not 100 times?

Background:

A. To transgress a Torah prohibition of Shabbos one has to perform a “meleches machsheves” which is “an act of craftsmanship ” meaning it has to be done with intent, knowing what you are doing, the act was done for the same purpose as done in the Mishkan, in its normal way, constructive, and will cause a permanent result.

B. 2 out of 3 figs were allowed to be picked for the sake of saving the sick person’s life but the branch with the two figs should have been cut off so that there would not have been any prohibition.

C. One is liable for the act of stealing, for example the Ketzos 348:2 proves from a Rashi in the first chapter of Bava Metzia that you are only liable for stealing someone else’s pet who walked into your property if you close your gate so that the animal cannot get out because you did an act which stole it from the owner.

Answer: By stealing because the act is the prohibition then only one act of taking the bag of cash is liable not the hundred bills that’s in the bag.(though you have to pay all hundred back but G-d only counts it as one sin.) But since on Shabbos it’s not only the act but it’s meleches machsheves and though you did only one act of cutting down the branch but with the intent of getting 3 figs when you only need 2 to save the guy’s life so he is liable for that 3rd fig not needed.

Posted on

Noach – The Balance Between Bitachon & Hishtadlus

What made Noach such a big tzadik, a righteous person, that only he and his family deserved to survive the flood?

The pesukim in this week’s Torah portion of Noach twice mention that Noach was a tzadik before he entered the ark. The portion begins, “These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generation; Noach walked with G-D” (Breishis 6:9). Then in the beginning of the next perek the Torah states, “Then Hashem said to Noach, ‘Come to the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation'” (Breishis 7:1).

The Ralbag tells us that the Torah “is informing us about the secrets of Hashem’s Divine Providence over man in specific terms and in general terms. For belief in them directs a person towards much perfection, besides the fact that the Torah in general is built upon it. This is what the Torah is teaching us when it said, “And Hashem said, ‘My spirit shall not contend evermore concerning Man since he is but flesh’ (Breishis 6:3), for the flood which was most incredibly bad, was still [Divine] providence on mankind, for He did not prevent them from reaching perfection, which is the purpose of creation just as originally. And the Torah is teaching us by saying, “because with him I saw a tzadik before Me in this generation,” for the tzadik is protected by The Blessed Hashem with incredible protection to save him from bad things that should rightfully come upon him, just as was explained by the saving of Noach and the protection Hashem gave him in this wonderful story. And if there would have been another tzadik besides him, he would have been saved with him, from the fact that the Torah goes out of its way to explain the reason why he was saved, which was that Hashem saw a tzadik before Him. What follows is that if there would have been another tzadik besides him, he would have been saved with him, to the point that if the entire generation would return to Hashem and leave their bad ways, they would have all been saved.”

 It would seem from this Ralbag that what defined Noach as righteous was his incredibly high level of belief and trust in Hashem and His Divine Providence, both in general and specifically in his individual life. Because the faith of a tzadik is so incredibly intense and focused, so too the Divine Providence Hashem has over this person is more direct and personalized. Yet Hashem did not just create a force field around him and his family to save him from the elements with food from heaven. Rather, Hashem instructed Noach, “Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; make the ark with compartments and cover it inside with pitch… and as for you, take yourself of every food that is eaten and gather it in to yourself etc.” (6:14, 21). The Ralbag points out that “The Torah is already teaching us an incredible lesson by telling us of the command Noach was commanded, of making the ark in this exact fashion with specific parameters so that he will be protected, as well as collecting food which will be enough for while he is in the ark. There is an incredible lesson that can be learned [from these instructions] which is that even the righteous man who is guaranteed protection by Hashem should not be lax in preparing provisions for his household and to take action in the proper fashion just because he trusts in Hashem that he thinks it will be found for him food and health. All the more so all the other people should not be lax [in one’s hishtadlus, effort]. Chaza”l say, when it says, ‘in order so that Hashem, your G-D shall bless you,’ one might have thought this is true even if he sits around doing nothing, therefore it teaches you [one is blessed] ‘in all that you will do.'”

One would think that if a person is on such a high level of faith and trust in Hashem, that he is considered a tzadik under Hashem’s Divine protection, then he should not have to put in too much effort into life. In a sense, any hishtadlus [effort] is the antithesis of the highest levels of belief in Hashem’s Divine Providence, for one must believe that everything comes from Hashem and Hashem can do absolutely anything. So, if the more one trusts in Hashem the less he should have to do, and on the contrary the more personal effort one puts in the less of a connection one might think he has with Hashem! Case in point, Moshe went 40 days and 40 nights without eating, for he was on the highest level of belief in Hashem, “face to face”. Wouldn’t one think that that would be the level a tzadik like Noach might be on, if the Torah attests that he was righteous? Or at least on the level of the Jews of the desert who received manna from heaven, drank water from a rock and had Divine Protection by the Clouds of Glory!? Yet Hashem expected Noach to go to great efforts to build himself, his family, and all the animals an ark with exact dimensions, and to collect enough food for everyone.

How much exactly is the requirement for the effort one puts into his life and how does that balance with the concept of emuna and bitachon? Rabbeinu Avraham, the son of the Rambam gives general parameters to answer this question in his Sefer Hamaspik Li’ovdei Hashem. In the chapter on “prishus” he says, “the way to achieve true abstinence, meaning that with your heart, that is the effort to stand up against natural urges. For the love of this world is implanted in every person’s heart, and Shlomo already said, ‘He also but an enigma in their minds’ (Koheles 3:11). We set aside for the concept of hishtadlus the next chapter, and here we are just saying that the main effort one should have is to decide in a person’s mind a pure decision from any craze or delusions because the delights in this world are not the ultimate purpose of mankind…” Elsewhere in the next perek “Hashkeida” he says, “The main hishtadlus, efforts, should be that a person has a feeling to perfect himself spiritually, and to rise oneself, aspire oneself, and find oneself yearning for it. But afterwards focus in on the combo of soul with body and the closeness of one with the other, as well as the benefits from delectable treats, as well as one’s involvement in benefiting and settling his world, and then one will know that this is the reason of why one’s soul would be cut off from the perfection which it was destined for. Just as Shlomo said, ‘made me a keeper of the vineyards of idols, but the vineyard of my own true G-D I did not keep’ (Shir Hashirim 1:6). Because these two connections, the connection between it (the soul) and the world which it was hewn from and the connection it (the body) has from the world it finds itself involved in-are diametrically opposite. When one is strengthened the other is weakened and the amount that one is made greater, so to the other is weakened.”

We see from here that the soul and body are interconnected; therefore physical effort must always be factored in with all the trust and faith one has in Hashem. But the balance of how much effort one needs to put into this world depends on how much emuna and bitachon one has. The more belief and trust one has, the less effort one has to put into his life; not that it is zero, but it is less, (which is why Hashem expected Noach to provide for the animals, his family and himself the bare minimum of food and shelter), maybe even a lot less, than others who have less faith in Hashem. Those that have less trust in Hashem cannot rely on Him more and are expected to put in more effort, hishtadlus. The correlation between body and soul, as well as hishtadlus versus emuna and bitachon are dependent on each other and ones focus but they always coexist together in this world.

Posted on

Torah Riddles # 236

Question: Why does the Sefer Hachinuch (mitzvah 2) hold that the mitzvah of mila is not upon the father once his son is bar mitzvah if it was not done yet but in mitzvah 392 he holds that pidyon haben is still a mitzvah on the father even if he didn’t do it after his son turned bar mitzvah?

Background:

A. The Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 444:11) says that every second one does not have a bris is a transgression (non fulfillment) of the positive mitzvah.

 B. The father has to do pidyon haben to the son even if the son died (after 30 days of life) and the mitzvah wasn’t done yet.

  Answer: As long as a man is an aral, uncircumcised, every second with foreskin is another transgression of a new positive mitzvah so when he turns 13 it’s a new positive mitzvah so the bar mitzvah boy takes this new mitzvah and the father is done. But by pidyon haben the obligation is not due to the fact that the son is not redeemed yet, for even if the son dies the father must still do the processes of redeeming him to perform the mitzva, rather the Torah requires the father to redeem him, and if so the obligation isn’t one the renews itself constantly, rather it is a one time obligation that starts when he is born (after 30 days of life) and lasts forever as long as it is not done. For this reason the mitzvah isn’t being newly forsaken every second, rather one has to get it done as soon as possible, therefore even once the boy grows up the father is still obligated since the original mitzvah has not gone away yet, and even if the father dies, the son just takes over the obligation of the original mitzvah.

Posted on

Simchas Torah/Breishis – Kavod Shabbos vs. Kavod HaTorah


 On Simchas Torah we conclude the reading of the Torah and immediately start it again with the reading of the seven days of creation in the Torah portion of Breishis. The creation culminates with the Shabbos; yet the obvious question is, why did Hashem rest on the 7th day and declare it a weekly “holiday “ in perpetuity?
 The Medrish Tanchuma in the second paragraph for the portion of Breishis answers this question based on a Shi’iltos di’Rav Achai Gaon, that was added into the medrish, and says that “Jews are obligated to rest on the day of Shabbos for Hashem created the world in six days and rested on Shabbos. He blessed [that day] and sanctified it, just as a person who builds his own house, and upon finishing it would throw a party. They would have a feast commemorating the conclusion of building, so that is what ‘By the seventh day G-D completed His work’ (Breishis 2:2), means. Hashem says you shall rest on Shabbos just as I rested on Shabbos, as it is written, ‘And He rested on the seventh day therefore Hashem blessed etc.’ (Shemos 20:11).” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The medrish goes on to discuss various things we do differently on Shabbos than during the week, for example not fasting, eating and drinking fancier food and drinks to delight on Shabbos, as well as dressing up in fancy, clean clothing. One shouldn’t talk about the same subjects or in the same way as they do during the week; neither shall they walk the same way as they do during the week, for mundane matters. (The Radak in Yeshayahu 58:13 adds that one should even eat his meals at different times than during the week, before or after the normal weekday times).
 The medrish then asks, “However we have to figure out, if a person is going to do a mitzvah, or going to pray, or to learn in the beis medrish, is it permitted to take big steps on Shabbos [as they would during the week]? (Big steps are defined by the Anaf Yosef as more than an amah. A normal step is an amah, meaning a half an amah between each foot when taking a step, and the sole of the foot is about a half an amah as well. An amah is 21.25 inches.) Is a mitzvah better or is honoring Shabbos better?” (The Be’ur Ha’amarim explain the question is, is honoring the Shabbos more important or is kavod HaTorah, honoring the Torah and it’s mitzvos when performing them more important? Meaning, are you considered in violation of the pasuk in Yeshaya 58:13 which says one should walk differently on Shabbos if one’s steps are too big when going to perform a mitzvah, or does it only apply to doing personal tasks?)

The Medrish answers, “Come and listen, for Rebbe Tanchum said in the name of Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi that a person should always run to do any matter of a mitzvah and even if it is on Shabbos. And Rebbe Zeira said that originally when I saw rabbis running to a Torah class on Shabbos, I said to myself that these rabbis are profaning Shabbos. When I heard what Rebbe Tanchum said, I also ran, and I concluded in my learning that the reward for going to a Torah class is in fact for the running.”
The Etz Yosef brings two reasons why the reward in Heaven for going to a Torah class is for running:

  1. According to Rashi, the reward for most people listening to a drasha [speech] from the rabbi is in fact the actual running to the lecture, as most of them cannot follow what he is saying, and even if they can, they won’t be able to repeat the lecture after a short period of time from when they got the reward for learning.
  2.  According to the Maharsha, this is referring to the rabbis who show up but don’t need the shiur, for they already know halacha, but nevertheless they are rewarded for running to the class. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

How could Rebbe Zeira think his fellow rabbis were desecrating Shabbos and what was it that Rebbe Tanchum said which made Rebbe Zeira change his mind so emphatically?

On the one hand we see how respecting Shabbos is so important to the degree that we have to do many things differently, like what we eat and drink, when we eat, how we dress, talk, and even the way we get from one place to the next. They should be different on Shabbos than during the week in order to acknowledge our belief in The Creator and appreciate His handiwork.
On the other hand the importance of respecting Hashem’s Torah can be emphasized by the opening statement of the Medrish Tanchuma on this Torah portion, which is the beginning of the entire book when it says, “’In the beginning G-D created’ this is what the pasuk writes, ‘Hashem with wisdom laid out the foundation of the land’ (Mishley 3:19), and when Hashem created His world, He inquired into the Torah and created the world.” The Torah is the blueprints of creation and handbook for mankind, so in showing honor to the Torah by running to fulfill its mitzvos and learning from it, it does not take away from the sanctity and honor of Shabbos as both are for the purpose of honoring Hashem.

Rebbe Zeira must have understood all this but thought that if the pasuk in Yeshayahu went out of its way to emphasize that one must walk differently on Shabbos, then that must be in all situations. Therefore since performing a mitzvah with alacrity or learning diligently with understanding, or praying with deep intent, suffices to bring honor to the Torah on Shabbos, the speed of travel to begin that mitzvah can be slowed for the sake of honoring the Shabbos, for both can be accomplished. Indeed, it is uniformly a show of respect for Hashem; therefore it must be those rabbi are disrespecting Shabbos by running to do the mitzvah!

However when he heard Rebbe Tanchum’s statement that at all times, even on Shabbos, one should rush to perform mitzvos or listen to Torah being learned, he realized that the ultimate respect to Hashem is in showing one’s interest and passion to hear and perform the “Word of G-D,” even if one does not understand what he is listening to or knows it already and doesn’t gain anything. The rush to acknowledge the importance of listening to Torah and trying to perform His will is the ultimate show of honor to the King Of All Kings and is not a sign of lack of respect to the Shabbos, because it is all one thing, serving Hashem, The Creator Of The World, and showing excitement in performing His will.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #235

1.      Question: If the Be’ur Halacha (in 657) says according to the Shulchan Aruch you must buy a child a kosher set of lulav and esrog because proper chinuch is to teach him how to do the mitzvah properly, but a child can’t do it properly anyways since in siman 60 we say that mitzvos must be done with kavana, proper intent and a child can’t have halachic kavana, so if he can’t perform the mitzva anyways then why are we required to buy him a kosher set?

 Background:

A. There is a famous chakira about what it means that mitzvos need proper intent: a. Does the intent make the action, meaning that it’s only considered an action of a mitzva with the intent but without the proper intent it is just a regular action not counting as an action of a mitzva.

b. The action by itself is considered an action of a mitzva even without proper intent, but the reason why we need the intent is for the fulfillment of the mitzvah, for there are two parts to the fulfillment of a mitzva, the action of the mitzvah and the proper intent for the mitzvah.

 Answer: If you say like side b then it makes sense because using a kosher set of lulav and esrog allows him to have a proper action of a mitzva, and his mind is saying he would like to perform that mitzvah, it’s just that it’s a mind of a child which can’t have proper intent but the parent is still doing all that he can to show the child how to perform the mitzva properly.