Author: Rabbi Milder

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.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #163

2.       Question: The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:1) says that if a kohen marries a safek chalutza he does not have to divorce her. Why is she any better than a woman who was only given a divorce paper as a chumra (acting strictly) though there was only a rumor that she was even married to a previous guy who she was arranged to marry, even though it is evident that she was not really married, she is still forbidden now to marry a kohen, one is an actual doubt where there might be rabbinic prohibition but still permitted and the other is totally permissible but is forbidden?!

Background:

a.       A safek chalutza is a woman who is in doubt whether she needs to perform the act of chalitza to her brother-in-law after her husband died and the child she gave birth to died within thirty days of birth so there is a doubt if he would have lived or not.

b.       A kohen cannot marry a divorced woman and is forbidden to a chalutza on a rabbinic level because it looks like a divorce, so when in doubt rabbinically we are lenient, however if nothing really happened and the divorce is just a chumra then certainly a kohen should be able to marry her?!

 Answer: It’s all based on rumors. People will say the kohen married a safek chalutza therefore it is permitted because we are lenient when in doubt. But by the get lichumra people will say she was really married previously and this is actually a real divorce so the kohen should not be marrying her in order not to look like he is doing something wrong. Similarly in the next si’if it says that a girl before the age of 12 who was married off by her mother or siblings because her father died and she annulled her marriage before she was 12, can still marry a kohen when she gets older because people will say she did mi’un not divorce even if he did divorce her and she did mi’un afterwards then people will say she did mi’un and the marriage and divorce never counted.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #162

1.       Question: Why does the Pnei Yehoshua say that a person who is a mamzer (illegitimate) based on a majority is permitted because he is still only considered a questionable mamzer but though we say that orlah (a tree grown within the past 4 years) outside of Israel is permitted if we are in doubt about how old it is but if there is a majority, we treat the tree as definite orlah?

Background:

a.       The power of majority neither has the ability to make something considered definite nor is it just a doubt in reality since it seems to clarify the matter one way or because the Torah just says we rely on the majority.

b.      The halacha is that only a definite mamzer is forbidden but by orlah the halacha is that anything in doubt is permitted because it is a halacha liMoshe miSinai.

  Answer: By mamzer since the halacha is that a definite mamzer is forbidden and since a majority is not definite, the Pnei Yehoshua holds he is not a definite mamzer and is automatically permitted. But by orlah the halacha is that outside of Israel a doubt is permitted for the halacha liMoshe miSinai says that a doubt is permitted and definite is forbidden, which implies from the language that for the most part orlah in doubt is permissible, therefore since this case is a majority and not a doubt then automatically it is forbidden.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7, halacha 2 continued

Even though there is compelling evidence that the lashon hara heard is definitely true you still can’t decide that it is for sure true without doing you own investigation even if the person being spoken about is right there in the room and stayed quiet. That is no indication whether what is said is true or not. Maybe the person decided it’s better to stay silent then to exacerbate a fight or he thought there is no point speaking up because no one will believe him anyway.

A proof to the ffact that silence is not an admission when it comes to lashon hara is from a halacha in Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:9) that if one witness testifies in court that a woman was adulterous and the husband believes him as two witnesses then he should be concerned and divorce because he has a right to make himself forbidden to her. But we don’t absolutely believe this one witness to cause her to lose her kesuba even though a woman proven to be adulterous does lose her kesuba. Also, if he doesn’t trust what the one witness said he doesn’t have to divorce his wife, even if his wife was silent when the claims were laid out against her. Even according to the Maharshal brought down in the Beis Shmuel there who says her silence is an admission that’s only in this case where such a claim deserves an answer if not true since it has such severe repercussions but in general an insult or claim does not have to be answered, in fact the gemara in Chullin 89a says that the world is worth being in existence because of those who are quiet when an argument ensues.

So if a single person who testifies in court of such a serious matter as adultery, which if he is lying he is putting his whole integrity on the line, destroying the life of this woman, and having her husband divorce, and she was quiet but still the Shulchan Aruch says we can’t decisively believe what he said, all the more so anyone else who speaks lashon hara even if he has the Chutzpah to say it in front of the victim that still does not give the listeners a right to believe it. Why should you believe a bad person who does the sin if lashon hara over the assumed kosher status of the one spoken about?! Even if he had a right to speak to warn others of a possible threat still those listening must only be concerned and investigate.

Furthermore, even if the victim being spoken about is a person who always speaks up and defends himself against any attack, like for example someone like President Trump, but this time he is quiet still that is not an indication that what was said was true because there can be any number of reasons of why he was quiet as stated earlier. The Rema (Even HaEzer 2:4) says that if A person was called a mamzer/bastard to his face and was quiet that is not an admission and even if he was called a mamzer/bastard and he defended himself then right afterwards was called a challal/illegitimate kohen and was silent that still isn’t an admission. It makes no difference whether it was claimed in a heated argument or not, and if it wasn’t during an argument then the best people can do is just be suspicious and do research if need like for shidduch purposes, etc.

The Chofetz Chaim concludes in his footnote that all this is obvious but he feels he spell it out so that people won’t people tricked by their yetzer hara/evil inclination to believe any slander no matter how compelling the initial evidence is, without an investigation.

Posted on

Vayechi – Ben Porat Yosef

This dvar Torah is dedicated in memory of my rebbe, HaGaon HaRav Avraham ben Tzvi Mordechai Kanarek, zecher tzadik kadosh livracha who passed away this past week on the 14th of Teves. Yehi zichro baruch!

In Vayechi, the last Torah portion of the Book of Breishis, Yaakov gives each of his sons a blessing which, if you read them carefully, you will find that Yaakov really highlighted the unique traits that each brother was born with and developed as he grew up, as well as providing a peek into the future with specific prophecies for each brother.

About Yosef, Yaakov began by saying (Breishis 49:22):

A charming son is Yoseph, a son charming to the eye; [of the] women, [each one] strode along to see him. כבבֵּ֤ן פֹּרָת֙ יוֹסֵ֔ף בֵּ֥ן פֹּרָ֖ת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן בָּנ֕וֹת צָֽעֲדָ֖ה עֲלֵי־שֽׁוּר:

The Medrish Rabba, as explained by the Matnas Kehuna, gives an eye opening  depiction behind the beginning of Yaakov’s blessing to Yosef. With a “play on words” of פֹּרָת֙  the Medrish says that this word describes 6 things about Yosef: (1) Yosef broke the brotherly pact he had with his brothers by telling his father bad news about them. (2)  The brothers violated their side of the deal by selling him to Yishmaelim (Arab merchants). (3) Yosef broke away from his master’s wife by not listening to her. (4) She betrayed Yosef by sending him to jail. Rebbe Abin said  that he acquired a great and exulted position through the dreams of the (5) fruit, i.e. grain, and the (6) cows that he interpreted for Pharaoh. About all these things it writes, “And the maidservants… drew near” (Breishis 33:6). This thing He said to him, ‘it is upon Me to pay you for that eye.’ “[Each one] strode along to see him.” It happened that when Yosef went out to rule over Egypt the princesses were staring at him from between the lattices and they threw rings, bracelets, and necklaces at him in order to get him to look up and stare at them, nevertheless, he did not stare at them. Hashem said to Yosef, ‘You did not lift your eyes and stare at them, I swear that I will give your daughters an amount in the Torah, referring to a measure of a parsha. The section that talked about the laws of a daughter inheriting where there is no son was said because of the daughters of Tzelaphchad, the son of Chefer, from the tribe of Yosef. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Medrish describes in brief all the trials and tribulations Yosef went through with the quarrels between him and his brothers, ultimately being sold into slavery and then being betrayed by his master’s wife and thrown in jail. He had every excuse to draw attention to himself in order to boost his confidence. Besides, he knew he was good looking as the pasuk and Rashi recounts, “’And Joseph had handsome features’: As soon as Joseph found himself [in the position of] ruler, he began eating and drinking and curling his hair” (Breishis 39:6). Still in all, he did not give in to the temptation of the Egyptian princesses who were trying to entice him to notice them.

But if you think about it, what was the big deal? Yosef was known as Yosef Hatzadik, the righteous one, for overcoming the temptations presented by Potiphar’s wife. He had his father’s face embedded in his mind to do no evil. He remembered all of his father’s teachings and lived by them day in and day out, never forgetting that Hashem runs the world. So what was the big deal about Yosef not looking up when these ladies were trying to get his attention?

We see from here how powerful the drive to be noticed is. The temptation to be seen and acknowledged is so great that even someone on the level of Yosef Hatzadik, could have fallen to temptation and therefore Hashem rewarded him measure for measure for ignoring the attention the princesses were trying to give him instead his great granddaughters got eternal attention from the Torah as a whole section of the Torah was learnt because of them, all in the merit of Yosef staying focused on task and not giving into the temptation of being noticed by the Egyptian princesses.