Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 8

The case of Tuvia in Pesachim 113b is where Tuvia sinned and Zigud told on him to Rav Pappa and Rav Pappa gave lashes to Zigud for testifying as a single witness against Tuvia for no reason. Even in that case even though Zigud might have been a student of Rav Pappa and was trusted for what he says, that doesn’t mean it can be accepted as fact plainly, only unless there are a combination of two factors can it be accepted.

  1. The speaker had to have firsthand knowledge that he saw it himself not secondhand knowledge, even if he is believed as two witnesses and the person, he heard it from was believed as two witnesses still the threshold to believe it and take action isn’t there anymore. This is because a person who is honest enough to be believed as two witnesses has within his nature honesty and integrity but that can only be assumed if he is talking about what he saw himself but once it becomes second hand then maybe what he heard was a lie and even if who he heard from is honest but once it’s second hand then this level of trust is one step removed and can’t be trusted anymore to act on.
  2. The other factor is that if he is on the level of being trusted as two witnesses that means you can only distance yourself from the sinner until he repents. Now a days no one has such integrity of being believed as two witnesses anyways so even to be concerned and stay away from the would-be sinner until he repents you can’t do; you have to try to help him, but you certainly can’t take action against him monetarily and physically and certainly you cannot repeat what you have heard no matter how honest the speaker is. This is no different than the Shulchan Aruch in Even HaEzer 115:7 and 178:9 which says that a husband can trust one witness if he wants who says his wife committed adultery to divorce her, but she does not lose her kesuba. Only if there are two witnesses, where we reach the threshold of believability in halacha to take action does she lose her kesuba.
Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #171

2.       Question: The Pnei Yehoshua asked in Bava Kamma 23b: Why are eidim zomimin liable to pay full damages for testifying that an ox is a muad, a habitual gorer for goring 3 times, even though he has not gored the fourth time yet, but if let say two witnesses testify that a person has two pubic hairs which means he’s bar mitzvah and they are found to be eidim zomimin, why wouldn’t they be put to death since if this kid did a sin deserving of capital punishment, for example murder, or breaking Shabbos, then he would be put to death since he is bar mitzvah based on their testimony?

Background:

A.      Eidim zomimin are false witnesses who are proven wrong by two other witnesses who say you were with us on that day and so could not have the ability to testify what you testified. There punishment is what they were trying to give the defendant.

B.      An ox is considered habitual to gore after 3 goring but only after the fourth one is the ox owner liable to pay full damages, before that he only has to pay half damages.

C.      What is each scenario trying to testify and judge?

 Answer: Capital punishment is only the consequences of becoming a bar mitzvah but the testimony was strictly about his status of bar mitzvah so giving them the death penalty won’t be exactly punishing them with what they were trying to do to him. But the witnesses of a muad status was trying to create a status of needing to pay full payments for the animal’s violence so even if it didn’t actually gore a fourth time yet but the witnesses tried getting a status of muad on this animal which is considered as if full damages was sentenced based on their testimony if it happens again so they have to pay for that full damage status.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #170

1.       Question: Why can one of the witnesses who sign on a get marry the divorced woman later on in life but two witnesses that sign on a document of sale of a piece of land can never buy that land?

Background:

A.      The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 12:1) says that the messenger who hands a get to the wife, who needs to say, “it was written and signed in front of me”, also, the single witness who testifies to a woman that her husband died, can’t marry her because of suspicions that might arouse. But if they do get married, they don’t have to separate. But if a messenger brings a get and is not required to say, “it was written and signed in front of me,” he is permitted to marry her since he’s not marrying her based on his own words. So too, two witnesses who testify that her husband died, one of them can marry her because two don’t normally coerce to sin for one. However, the Rema argues and says that even though it’s technically permitted for one of the two witnesses to marry her but a ba’al nefesh, one who holds himself to higher standards should distance himself from this.

B.      However, the Taz (2) holds that even a ba’al nefesh can marry her, he just cannot buy the land he had signed with someone else as witnesses of a document of sale since people will say he’s involved in a scam to just acquire that land. What’s the difference?

Answer: The Taz holds that two witnesses can both be involved in coercion over a piece of land since they can both partner in benefiting from it but only one person is allowed to be married to a woman at a time so we wouldn’t expect two people to be involved in coercion over testimony of a wife and therefore even if you normally have higher standards one of the witnesses can marry the widow.

Posted on

Beshalach – Leadership in Overcoming Fear

In this week’s Torah portion of Beshalach, one of the greatest miraculous events of history happened, the splitting of the sea, where the Jews were saved from the clutches of the Egyptians and the Egyptian army all drowned in the Red Sea. The medrish, Pirkei DiRebbe Eliezer, chapter 42, depicts how the sea originally refused to split on the command of Moshe Rabbeinu even after he showed signs of worthiness to be listened to, but only after Hashem Himself “came down” and revealed His Honor on the sea did the sea runaway in fear into the depths and then came up and congealed into 12 crystalized tunnels, one for each tribe to walk through.
The medrish then relates, “Rebbe Akiva said, that the Jews walked towards the Red Sea and then turned back fearing that maybe the waters will collapse and inundate them. The tribe of Binyamin wanted to enter into the sea as it says, ‘There Binyamin the youngest rules over them’ (Tehillim 68:28), referring to them going down into the sea. The tribe of Yehuda started to pelt them with stones as it says, ‘the princes of Yehuda pelt them with stones’ (Tehillim 62:28). Then Nachshon jumped first into the sea and sanctified Hashem’s Great Name in front of everyone. With the ruling hand of the tribe of Yehuda all the other Jews followed them into the sea as it says, ‘Yehuda became His sanctification, Israel his dominion’ [of Yehuda] Tehillim 114:2). The Egyptians started to run after the Jews but they then turned back fearing that maybe the waters will collapse and inundate them. What did Hashem do? He appeared in the split sea as a man riding a mare, as it says ‘At the gathering of the steeds of Pharaoh’s chariots’ (Shir Hashirim 1:9), and the horse that Pharaoh was riding saw the mare and started running towards it into the sea. The Egyptians saw Pharaoh enter the sea and all of them followed suit, as it says, ‘The Egyptians pursued and came after them,’ (Shemos 14:23), immediately the waters went back and deluged them, as it says, ‘And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen’ (Shemos 14:28).” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The commentary on this medrish, Be’ur Maspik, points out that this medrish really combines both opinions found in maseches Sotah 37a, and relates that the tribe of Binyamin desired to enter the sea but Nachshon ben Aminadav was swifter (zariz) to act in order to sanctify Hashem’s Name. The Maharsha in Sotah 37a, based on a Rashi in Tehillim (62:28) adds that the reason why the tribe of Yehuda was pelting the tribe of Binyamin with stones was because they were jealous of them, so they started stoning them [as a distraction which allowed Nachshon ben Aminadav from the tribe of Yehuda to jump in first.] The Be’ur Maspik further relates that when everyone saw the tribe of Yehuda’s aggressiveness and how they took control of their inclination in order to jump into the sea, only then did the Jewish people do the same. Whereas the Egyptians, what caused them to follow in chase? The horse of Pharaoh that entered the sea first.

There seems to be identical reactions about the sea splitting between the Jews and Egyptians. They both were terrified and hesitated to enter the split sea lest the sea would collapse and drown all of them. However, what drove them into the sea were two very different approaches.

Most of the Jewish people seemed very hesitant to take the plunge, and though the tribe of Binyamin seemed willing and ready to do so but we can infer that even if they did, everyone else would still question their sanity, and not be convinced to follow suit at the threat of their demise. However, it would seem, that because of the passion and aggressive nature the tribe of Yehuda showed which created a tremendous kiddush Hashem, that inspired the rest of the Jewish nation to overcome their fears and follow suit into the Red Sea which was their ultimate savior.

On the other hand, the Egyptians were terrified for the same reason , and it would seem that even though  Pharaoh gave orders to pursue the Jews, the Egyptian army refused to listen, but only after an illusion, orchestrated by Hashem, which lead to Pharaoh losing control of his horse which ran into the sea with him, did the army follow since because if their leader is doing it, they must do the same. With all their discipline and army training they still refused out of fear to chase after the enemy until their leader seemingly began the chase and only then did they feel compelled to overcome their fears which ultimately lead to their demise.

We see from here two different approaches of how a leader can convince his followers to overcome their fears. One is to show passion, commitment, zerizus, and validity for the cause which will “rally up the troops” even if they aren’t disciplined soldiers. The other is to lead by example once they are disciplined soldiers. Either way, it takes a show of courageous leadership to prevail over trepidation.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 6,7

We are continuing with the chapter that talks about compelling reasons to believe lashon hara and whether you are allowed to believe it.

Halacha 6: Even if a person goes over to you and starts talking derogatorily about himself and throws others into the story, for example if a Jew says me and my friends went to McDonald’s to eat, or he says we all got mad at someone and started insulting him, or we are all not so smart, in all these cases and the like you are only allowed to believe the story about the person who is talking but not about his friends. This is based on gemara in Kesubos 23b and though there is the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim traveling by train to some town and the guy who wound up next to him, not knowing what the Chofetz Chaim looked like got into a conversation about where they were going and the guy said he was going to see the Chofetz Chaim in some town and the Chofetz Chaim remarked what so great about the Chofetz Chaim and he belittled himself a bit and the guy got all upset and slapped him. When they got off the train and there was a crowd to meet the Chofetz Chaim the guy was quite embarrassed. People say that based on this story maybe you should not even talk badly about yourself but halachically the Chofetz Chaim says you could believe someone if he admits he made a mistake or is imperfect or the like, just sometimes take it with a grain of salt because people are humble.

In halacha 7 we say that even though some people depending on the person and situation are very honest and trustworthy and can be believed like two witnesses however when it comes to lashon hara that doesn’t make a difference because even if what they are saying is true that is still lashon hara and you must judge favorably the person being talked about. Besides that the Chofetz Chaim says that now a days no one has the level of believability as two witnesses so you should always be concerned of what you hear but if need be you can take proper precautions and investigate the matter when dealing with issues or signs which are not clearly known to be forbidden to all Jews or lacking in fine character and the like.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #169

2.       Question: Why does the Mishna Berura (31:2:7) allow one to take off his tefillin after kedusha of shachris on Chol Hamoed but does not allow one to take off his Rashi pair and put on his Rabbeinu Tam pair during chazaras hashatz, after kedusha, (see 34:2:14)?

Background:

A.      The Mishna Berura in one place says that on Chol Hamoed tefillin should be taken off before Hallel and now people have the custom to remove them after kedusha however you have to be very careful to listen and answer to chazaras hashatz.

B.      Elsewhere he says, … and not like those who take off their Rashi tefillin and put on their Rabbeinu Tam tefillin right after kedusha, and in truth besides doing it inappropriately as explained earlier in 25:13 that since Rashi tefillin are the main ones they should only be taken off by Uva litzion, also one has to listen and answer to chazaras hashatz and shouldn’t be involved in anything else.

 Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura in footnote 3 of 31:2:7 says that since one needs intent upon putting on tefillin then one will be distracted from chazaras hashatz but when just taking off tefillin one won’t be distracted.

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.