Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #149

2. Question: Why can we wear tefillin during a bris but not on Shabbos or yom tov? Background:

A. There are 3 things that are called signs and they can’t actively overlap with each other besides bris, the 3 are bris, tefillin, and shabbos/yom tov.

 B. The problem with overlapping signs is that you are degrading one sign when having the other that is why one does not wear tefillin on Shabbos and yom tov but if so then he shouldn’t wear it when a bris is being performed?

Answer: Rav Moshe Feinstein answers (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim volume 4 question 101) the sign isn’t the act of giving the bris but the fact that one has a bris therefore the father can give his son a bris with tefillin on (to give a reason for the act of the bris, and to show that it’s an action of giving over the sign.) Where as Shabbos and Yom tov is the sign itself so to wear the tefillin during that day cheapens the day. [/exapnd]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test 148

1.       Question: Why does the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 426:2) hold we should wait until Shabbos to say Kiddush Levana in order to beautify the mitzvah but one should not wait to get his tallis if he only has his tefillin even though wearing the tefillin with the tallis beautifies the mitzvah?

Background:

A. There is a debate whether you should do a mitzvah sooner than later without pushing it off or if you delay and you do it in a better way than it is worth pushing it off. The Mishna Berura (25:1:7) by this tefillin case says a mitzvah done in a timely fashion is more beloved.

B. The reason to push off saying Kiddush Levana from the earliest possible moment, assuming you will have a good chance to do it later, is to say it while feeling fresh and nicely clothed.

Answer: By Kiddush Levana delaying to right after shabbos gives praise to the mitzvah of Kiddush Levana itself. But by tefillin, wearing it with the tallis doesn’t bring praise to the mitzvah itself of tefillin.

Posted on

Vayera – Philanthropy: Doing Because You Want to Not Just Because it is What’s Right


We find in this week’s Torah portion of Vayera the destruction of Sodom. Among the many reasons why it deserved annihilation was because of their refusal to be charitable; it in fact became illegal under Sodomite law to take care of strangers or guests from outside the city. This became known as the trait of Sodom and in fact the prophet Yechezkel warns the Jewish people, “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom your sister: pride, abundance of bread, and careless ease were hers and her daughters’, and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy” (Yechezkel 16:49).

There is a fascinating Mishna in Pirkey Avos that mentions this trait of Sodom:
5:10 There are four types of people: One who says, “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine” is a boor (or ignoramus, עם הארץ). One who says “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” — this is a median characteristic; others say that this is the character of a Sodomite. One who says, “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours” is a chassid (pious person). And one who says “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine” is wicked.

“What is mine is mine and what is your is yours, this is the median trait, but some say this is the trait of Sodom.” Rabbeinu Yonah asks that if we take it literally that a person will not share with anyone though he is not a taker, why then is there an argument of what kind of person he is? The Gemara in Kesubos 68a clearly says that withholding tzedaka is the trait of Sodom and in many places the sages say this type of person is completely wicked. It does not make sense that there would be an opinion amongst the sages that this type of trait would be an average trait?!

Thus, Rabbeinu Yonah felt compelled to explain the Mishna as referring to a person who does give to the needy when obligated, out of fear of Hashem, but it doesn’t come natural to him because he is miserly. His attitude is “I’ll support the poor who come to my door  because the Torah tells me to since I am a G-D fearing Jew, but who  cares whether this feeling of giving comes natural to me or not” – this trait itself is an average trait. However, there are those who say that this trait itself is the trait of Sodom and its roots are very bad until one acquires the trait of giving away (ותרנות). One who does not support the hand of the poor and destitute at all, everyone would without a doubt agree is bad, and G-D forbid the sages of the Mishna would call them average, but one who gives tzedakah out of Fear of Heaven rather  than naturally is what the argument is about as to  whether this is an average trait or a trait of Sodom. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Rabbeinu Yonah is saying something quite shocking and is a tremendous eye opener! It is possible for a person to be giving lots of money, at least a tenth of his earning in maaser (tithes), besides money to those who come to him begging for charity and if he is really rich he might be giving millions of dollars, yet he is doing it only because he is meticulous in his observance of halacha, Jewish Law, since he is a G-D fearing Jew, but if it was up to him he wouldn’t give anyone a dime because he is too cheap. Since he is giving and not for some ulterior motive like to get a tax cut or for fame, for example too have his name on a building, how then can anyone say that this is the character of Sodom and has very evil roots; he is still doing the right thing and doing it out of fear of Hashem; what is wrong with that!!!

There is an incredible nuance learnt from Rabbeinu Yonah! It is not enough to be G-D Fearing, to do the right thing in terms of the trait of giving, because deep down inside he is still stingy and a miser. Rather one must feel naturally compelled to give to those who are in need and if one does not, then it is debatable whether at the very least he is just nothing special or at the very worst rooted in evil like the people of Sodom.

On the other hand Rabbeinu Yona explains that if one’s attitude is “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine, is an ignoramus” because granted he is a giver but he is also a taker and does not realize “that one who hates gifts is a formula for life” which is a good trait. Where as one who has the attitude of “What is mine is yours and what is yours is yours, is pious” which means he takes the opposite extremes of having a natural feeling of being a giver and hating gifts. He wants to give and not take from others which is a trait above the letter of the law, that is why he is considered pious. This takes a lot of strategy and brainpower to be able to support yourself without any help and still have the means to be able to give with open arms to those who are in need, with a natural fervor and passion.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 6, halacha 7

The Chofetz Chaim says that there is a prohibition of accepting lashon hara not only if what the person is saying might be a lie, but even if what he is saying you know is true and the person saying it is giving a negative twist to it, if the listener does not judge the situation favorably when he is supposed to, not only does he transgress judging a fellow Jew favorably which some poskin say is a mitzvah in the Torah, “bitzedek tishpot amisecha” but he also received the prohibition of accepting lashon hara just because he did not judge the situation favorably. One of the examples I made up was what if you saw a hunter shoot a child in the forest and someone else ran over to you who saw the same thing and said this hunter should be caught and executed for this horrible act of viciously gunning down an innocent child. This is obviously lashon hara, but you yourself saw it happen however you have to judge the situation. What’s the child doing in a forest where people hunt? Did the hunter aim for the child or was he aiming for a deer, etc. etc.? You can’t come to conclusions so quickly and accept that the shooter is malicious, you have to judge favorably until all the circumstances are clear.

The Chofetz Chaim brought 3 proofs that not judging favorably and accepting lashon hara even if true is a sin:
A. Clearly the person who spoke the lashon hara sinned, therefore so to the one who accepted it.
B. Yeravam ben Navat was rewarded kingship over the ten tribes of Israel for not accepting true lashon hara from the prophet Amos of someone in Israel stabbing him, and he accepted that even if it is true it is a prophecy from G-d. So because he judged the prophecy positively though it was negative and against him he was rewarded to become king even though he became a very evil king.
 C. King Shaul actually accepted the lashon hara from Doeg that Achimelech helped David, which Achimelech admitted to but Shaul believed Doeg and killed many people for helping David because King Shaul thought David was rebelling against his rulership and wanted to dethrone him in his lifetime. Doeg was called someone who always speaks lashon hara because of this and King Shaul was branded someone who accepts lashon hara, even though it was true that Achimelech helped David but he didn’t judge him favorably that it was intent to help someone make a rebellion against his kingship.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #147

2.       Question: Why did Rabbeinu Tam just walk up to the bima for the third aliyah even though he was not called up for it on Shabbos when he was in the middle of shiva?

Background:

A. Learning Torah is one of the things forbidden to be done while mourning during shiva.

B. On Shabbos private mourning is observed, like no Torah learning.

C. Torah reading at minyan is considered learning Torah, hence a mourner should not get an aliya during shiva.

D. Rabbeinu Tam used to get the third aliyah every Shabbos.

 Answer: To not get an aliyah for Rabbeinu Tam would be observance of public mourning since he normally got one every Shabbos so he just went up on his own though the gabbai did not call him up so that he would not be publicly mourning on Shabbos which transgresses the honor of Shabbos. (See Yoreh Deah 400:1and the Rema says that for this reason if there are no other kohanim the mourner should be called up for the aliyah and also the Pischei Teshuva Yoreh Deah 399:1 says that a mourner can get an aliyah on Simchas Torah when every single person gets an aliyah for the same reason, that if he doesn’t then it will be obvious that he is in mourning and it will become public mourning which can’t be done on yom tov.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #146

1.    Question: Why does pesach or sukkos cancel the rest of Shiva and shloshim for a mourner even if he first hears about the burial on Shabbos and yom tov starts the next day?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 399:1) says that one who buries the dead before yom tov and is able to go through the process of mourning at least one hour before the yom tov has the rest of the week canceled by the yom tov. However if by accident or on purpose he does not mourn during that hour, and definitely if he was unaware of the death until after yom tov, then he has to mourn for 7 days after yom tov.

 B. Basic laws of mourning include no working, no showering or laundering.

 C. There is a prohibition of working and laundering during Shabbos, yom tov even on chol hamoed for the most part.

Answer: Since one is practicing acts of mourning during the yom tov by not laundering or working then it counts for both the yom tov and mourning and that is why mourning is canceled because it was fulfilled to an extent during the actual yom tov.

Posted on

Lech Licha –

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.
What Is Love
  Last week’s Torah portion of Noach ended with us being introduced to Avraham Avinu, this week’s portion of Lech Licha begins the story of our forefather and his trek to ultimate greatness. The Mishna in Pirkey Avos says, “Our forefather Avraham was tested with ten trials, and withstood them all; to show the degree of our forefather Avraham’s love [for Hashem]” (Avos 5:3).

There is an argument amongst the early commentators what exactly the ten trials were. Rabbeinu Yona says the ten trials were:

  1. Nimrod threw him into the fiery furnace in Ur Kasdim.
  2. The command to leave his land where he grew up, which he did.
  3. The famine in Eretz Canaan where he wound up. Even though he was promised blessing he did not question what Hashem was doing now.
  4. Sarah Immeinu being taken by Pharaoh in Egypt.
  5. The war of the four kings where he overpowered the enemy with only 318 men. Avraham trusted in Hashem and was provided with a miracle to save himself, Lot, and all the treasures of Sodom and Amorah. He accepted all that happened for his good and merit.
  6. At the age of 99 he had his bris milah, he put himself into danger at an old age and was saved.
  7. Avimelech, King of Plishtim, took Sarah Immeinu.
  8. Yishmael and his mother Hagar were banished from Avraham’s house at the command of Hashem. Even though it hurt him to see what was being done to his son, Avraham still fulfilled the command.
  9. Akeidas Yitzchak, the binding of Yitzchak his son. This was the greatest test and proved he was a big fearer of Hashem.
  10. The burial of Sarah Immeinu. After his wife died he had difficulty finding a burial plot until he bought one for a very expensive price and still he did not question Hashem, though he was promised the entire Land of Caaan to belong to him and future generations.

Rabbeinu Yona says that these ten trials were to show the degree of Avraham Avinu’s love for Hashem which means that these tests showed the world that he was G-d fearing and perfected all his character traits. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
What does fear of Hashem and perfecting his character traits have to do with Avraham Avinu’s love of Hashem? Chaza”l say fear might lead to love but what does it have to do with love itself? And perfecting his character had to do with his own personal development, what does that have to do with Avraham’s feeling of love for Hashem?

If I would prove how much Avraham Avinu loved Hashem I would have mentioned how Avrahaham built  the four alters to bring gifts of offerings up to Hashem. (This, the Sforno in his introduction to the Torah says that in that merit there were 4 alters that the Jewish people merited to build from the time they wandered in the desert until the first Beis HaMikdash was built.) Another expression of love was by teaching tens of thousands of people who Hashem is, by bringing them closer to Hashem and teaching them how to bless Hashem. Or even the very fact that Avraham found Hashem from the age of 3 and kept on developing the close bond with Hashem by performing all His Torah and mitzvos through just looking around the world and  realizing what Hashem wants  him to do, meaning caring for Hashem and His will is also a tremendous expression of love. So why does the Mishna say passing these tests, which the Rabbienu Yonah says shows that Avraham was a G-d fearing Jew and perfecting his character, are what defines his love for Hashem?

What we see from here is that one’s expression of love is really defined by the respect and dedication one has for the loved one. It is not the gifts or sharing the love with others by showing them why it is so worth it to love Hashem. It is not even caring, which is, the focus of one’s love (though all these things contribute and is a part of one’s expression of love). However, by Avraham Avinu showing his utmost fear of Hashem and perfecting his character traits by unwaveringly surmounting all the challenges all while building and cementing a solid belief and trust in Hashem, proves his utmost respect and dedication towards Hashem which really defines true love.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 6, halacha 6 footnotes 17, 18

Today was admittedly very difficult. The Chofetz Chaim in footnote 17 was trying just to be honest and not make people think that we have to go to the extreme and say something is forbidden on a Torah level when it really isn’t. The case we are dealing with is when one is too lazy to get up and leave, granted he is disgusted with the lashon hara he hears and has no intent to accept it as truth so he does not transgress the Torah prohibition of accepting lashon hara but he was just too lazy to get up and leave though he had a chance so he gets a rabbinic prohibition of not actively staying far away from lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim asks why he doesn’t get a Torah prohibition just like a married woman who was kidnapped and was given the chance to leave but doesn’t so if her capturers have relations with her she is now forbidden to her husband because she showed willingness by not leaving when she had a chance whereas beforehand when she would have been permitted to her husband because anything the captors would have done would assumed. To have. even forced against her will. Furthermore we see by Esther in the Purim story that she only became forbidden to her husband, Mordechai, only after she invited Achashverosh to her party and he had relations with her that night, for until then she was just completely passive letting Achashveirosh do whatever he wanted and not having any delight in what he did, but when she invited him to the party, even though her intent was only to save the Jewish people but she now showed willingness to be with him. Why is the person who could have gotten up but didn’t only out of laziness and therefore privy to lashon hara any different then these women and the red fore also get a Torah prohibition for not leaving? The answer is that he is still different because we know his intent is not to have any benefit from the lashon hara and no rebuke could have stopped them from speaking the lashon hara and on the contrary he was disgusted at what he heard, so on a Torah level he did nothing wrong it is just that the Rabbis said you should put your finger in your ears or walk away and he was to embarrassed and lazy to do that so he only has a rabbinic prohibition. But these women must acquiesce at some degree to being to their kidnappers because why else would they be forbidden to their husbands just because they were too easy to go home? And with Esther, though she was just doing it to save the Jews but because she initiated the party know what would happen that night it shows some level of willingness which forbade her to Mordechai. Whereas the one who sat down to eat did not realize any lashon hara would be spoken so he isn’t as bad though he still should have gotten up when he had the chance.

Note 18 said that though the gemara in Kesubos says you should put your fingers in your ear which will make it hard to hear and might stop them from speaking because they see you do something abnormal which will tip them off to stop but nowadays people think you look like. A fool and ridiculously funny and will just make fun if you so it is better to just walk away.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #145

2.    Question: Why are you allowed to put yourself into a position where you would have to make a blessing for washing but shouldn’t put yourself into a position where you would have to say a blessing for tzitzis?

 Background:

A. There is a general rule that one should not make a blessing if he does not have to for it is saying Hashem’s name in vain.

 B. Tzitzis scenario: If one wore his tzitzis overnight the Mishna Berura (8:16:42) brings an argument of whether one has to make a blessing on them in the morning and when in doubt by blessings one should be lenient and not say it. However, the Mishna Berura says if he took off the tzitzis in the morning with in mind not to put them back on immediately then everyone agrees he should make a blessing upon putting it back on but ideally it is not right to take this advice because he will be saying an unneeded blessing according to those who say you do fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis at night.

C. The washing hands scenario is where one is unsure whether he said the blessing upon washing in the morning or if he washed his hands unintentionally before a meal with bread, the Mishna Berura (4:30, 33) says one should ideally put himself in a position where he would definitely have to make a blessing. In the Be’ur Halacha (159:12 “lichatchila”) he says about someone who unintentionally washed for a meal, that though according to most Rishonim he doesn’t have to wash again but if he can get more water he should wash again and it is better to sully his hands so that he will be obliged to say a blessing according to everyone.

 Answer: In the Be’ur Halacha (25:5 “vitov”) the Chofetz Chaim explains by washing that since it must be done because of the doubt then it is not considered an unneeded blessing but by the tzitzis just don’t take them off and it won’t prompt a need to say another blessing. Anyway, it is better to exempt the tzitzis with the blessing over a tallis either you put on or if someone else puts on with their blessing. 

  

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #144

1.    Question: If what a mourner during shiva can and can’t do for work is based on what one can and can’t do on chol hamoed then why is he allowed to have a non-Jew do work for him if he is a mourner which will otherwise be lost but a Jew cannot have a non-Jew do work for him which will otherwise be lost on chol hamoed?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 380:5) says it is forbidden for a mourner to do any work through someone else even a non-Jew unless it is something which will be lost which is permitted to be done through others, even if it is forbidden to be done on chol hamoed because it is too much of a hassle, it is still permitted for a mourner and even if it is something of craftmanship.

B. A mourner should not be doing any work in order to focus on the loss of his loved one.

C. The Taz (4) says that on Chol hamoed it is forbidden for others to do things which are a hassle, for you because of the honor of the holiday.

Answer: The honor of the holiday will be desecrated whether done by you or someone else since you are showing your work is more important than the day. But by the mourner the honor towards the dead is solely on the mourner which he has to focus on so it makes no difference if people are doing things for him, it allows his focus to be on his lost relative.