Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #157

2.    Question: Why can you open and close the door on Shabbos even if the Chanukah menorah is mounted on it but if you lit your menorah on the table, the table is muktzah and cannot be moved the entire Shabbos?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (277:1:7) says the reason why the door isn’t muktzah is because it’s of great value since it is used for the house and is nullified to the house and not to the candles.

B. By Shabbos candles the Mishna Berura there (si’if katan 18) say that if Twilight (bein hashmashos) there is challahs or other things needed for shabbos on the table and the shabbos candles are also there the table is a base for permitted and forbidden things and can be carried with the candles to a different place if the table is needed elsewhere assuming you can’t push off the muktzah stuff, i.e. the candles.

 C. Rav Elyashiv poskined that even if there is something more valuable which is permissible on the table when the Chanukah candles were lit there going into Shabbos still the table cannot be moved even after the candles go out.

 D. On any night candles cannot be moved until after the mitzvah is done and on shabbos they can’t be moved until after shabbos.

 Answer: The difference between a door and a table is that the door is considered part of the house which is part of the ground which can’t become muktzah but a table is an object which can become muktzah if it was set aside before shabbos to be used for something forbidden so since the table is being used for chanukah candles from before shabbos and is forbidden to be moved because of the Chanukah light then that supersedes even any important permissible thing from permitting the table to be moved on shabbos since the state of muktzah started from before shabbos whereas normally it starts as shabbos comes in.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #156

1.    Question: Why do we differentiate blessings between one vessel and more vessels when dipping them in the mikvah but when lighting Chanukah candles we say the same blessing whether for one candle or more?

Background:

A. The Pri Megadim says we say “lihadlik ner” in singular form for all nights of Chanukah so that we don’t differentiate between the first day and other days of Chanukah.

B. The Mishna Berura (263:22) quotes the Pri Megadim to say that for Shabbos candles we say “lihadlik ner shel Shabbos” no matter how many candles you light because the main obligation is one candle. Technically you only have to light one candle a night on Chanukah too.

C. For dipping vessels into the mikvah you say “al tevilas kli” for one and “al tevilas keilim” for more than one. (Dirshu Mishna Berura 676:1:1:1)

 Answer: By tevilas keilim each vessel is a separate obligation so one should say it in plural for to bless Hashem for each mitzvah you do but by Chanukah each added candle is only beautifying the mitzvah, though that becomes part of the mitzvah but since technically only one candle is needed per night then we stick to singular form for the blessing.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 6 halacha 10 footnote 25  

There is a difference between being concerned and taking proper precautions about something you heard and having a doubt about someone after you heard something about him or her. A concern and a doubt are two different things which must be differentiated. You can have concerns but you can’t have doubts just because you heard rumors or lashon hara.

This is illustrated from a gemara on daf 61a which tells a case of two Jews from the Galilei who rumors had it were murderers. They came to Rabbi Tarfon and asked him to hide them from the Roman Government. Rebbe Tarfon told them I can’t hide you be I have to be concerned that maybe you are murderers and the government will be out to get me for hiding criminals but I will not turn you in and my advice to you is to go hide yourselves because I can’t have a doubt that you might be murderers since every Jew has an assumption of being kosher good people until proven otherwise. This is the difference between a concern and a doubt. The Rosh asked a question how can we even be concerned that the rumors or lashon hara might be true and allow harm done to someone like if he was caught by the government?

The Chofetz Chaim has a few answers to that question in this footnote and towards the end of footnote 28. One of them is that it comes out one can only be concerned when what he hears will effect him or others like in this gemara that if these people were murderers then by protecting them it might put others in danger so can’t actively protect them but can’t turn them in because maybe they aren’t murderers. But let say the case last week of the guy who rumors say he ate non-kosher out of spite of Hashem then can’t be concerned about the rumors and not give him charity if he needs or redeem him if he is captured since it is just rumors even if he was known to be bad in other ways but just not so bad.

Another way of answering for Rebbe Tarfon was that the only reason why he didn’t save them was because he knew they can save themselves but if they couldn’t then he would have to protect them even if the government might go after him because the Torah says “don’t stand over the blood of your friend” you have to help any Jew in need even if they are suspect of doing really bad until it’s been proven they actually did it. This happens to be a very sensitive subject which might clarify how Jewish institutions seem to protect or hide would be Jewish criminals but until they are proven to be guilty of wrongdoing then we have to assume he is innocent even if he has a shady past we have to assume he has slipped so low until proven otherwise and you can’t even have doubts. However at the same time they and everyone should be concerned that the rumors or allegations might be true in order to take precautions to protect yourself and others from potential danger on any level.

Posted on

Vayishlach – In the Worst-Case Scenario

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.
Yaakov, preparing to meet his brother Esav, on his way back to Canaan, prepares himself for the worst possible scenario, as reported in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayishlach. “The angels returned to Yaakov, saying, ‘We came to your brother, to Esav, and he is also coming toward you, and four hundred men are with him.’ Yaakov became very frightened and was distressed; so he divided the people who were with him and the flocks and the cattle and the camels into two camps” (Breishis 32:7,8).

The Lesson the Ralbag learns from here is that it is fitting for a person to always be afraid and to judge things through the lens of the worst possible scenario, in order to focus on how to escape them. We see this from the fact that when Yaakov  heard about his brother Esav coming towards him with 400 men, he was afraid that Esav was coming to hurt him, despite having been guaranteed by Hashem that He would protect him and be with him. Indeed, Yaakov could have assumed that Esav was coming out with all of his men in order to show honor to Yaakov and to protect him. But still Yaakov used all of his brainpower to strategize how to save his family as best as possible. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

This is quite astonishing?! What happened to judging others favorably? Why must we always be afraid and imagine the worst possible scenarios that might befall us? Won’t that lead to anxiety and depression? What happened to serving Hashem out of Joy? Above all, what happened to the concept of bitachon, trust in Hashem? Especially in this case, where Hashem had assured Yaakov that no harm would be done to him and that Hashem would be with him? Even if you say Yaakov wasn’t sure whether he deserved being protected then his response should be to try to act more appropriately and gain assurance to be protected by Hashem, but not to take matters into your own hands?

We see an incredibly new insight into hishtadlus, our own efforts in life. We must say that part of serving Hashem is to put every effort into taking care of ourselves, within our natural boundaries. Even though having emuna and bitachon, belief and trust in Hashem, are very important mitzvos yet there is also a mitzvah for us to take care of ourselves within the boundaries of the world around us. Therefore we have a mitzvah to think of all possible scenarios, even the “worst-case scenario,” and take measures to ensure that it does not come to pass. This is part of our service of Hashem, even if Hashem tells us nothing wrong will happen to us. However, the feeling of fear one should always have is only healthy if it is being channeled into figuring out how to help yourself. But if you start feeling helpless and stressed out, that is a sign that you are not doing the right thing and one should then power up his faith in Hashem.

It is a mitzvah to have a tremendous amount of emuna and bitachon for one’s emotional state of mind but part of that faith in Hashem is the obligation to always be afraid something wrong might happen and one has to put in all his efforts to be sure he physically is able to survive to the best of his ability.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #155

2.       Question: Why on Chanukah is it beautifying the mitzvah by using bigger wax candles but it’s not beautifying the mitzvah when adding more oil into the cup to burn for more than the half hour allotted time for the mitzvah?

Background:

A.      The Mishna Berura (675:2:6) says there is no mitzvah to put in enough oil to last more than a half an hour but with wax candles their is a beautification of the mitzvah when having longer candles but they shouldn’t be too big.

 Answer: The Magen Avraham (there si’if katan 3) says there is an intrinsic beauty to longer candles that makes the mitzvah look nicer but oil is oil no matter how much was put in and once the half an hour is gone one can technically use that oil because it’s not being used for a mitzvah anymore so there is no intrinsic value to more oil. [/exapnd]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #154

1.       Question: How can Tosfos (Kiddushin 16a “Leima Ley”) say that a Jewish slave can go free by his master just declaring him ownerless just like a non-Jewish slave?

Background:

A.      Shmuel holds a non-Jewish slave goes free even by his master just declaring him ownerless. Even according to the opinion that the slave needs a document of freedom that is only to remove his prohibition of marrying a Jewish girl but a Jewish slave can be married to a Jewish girl.

B.      The Pnei Yehoshua’s question on Tosfos is that the way a declaration of ownerless works is that anyone whether rich or poor, man, woman, etc. is able to acquire the ownerless object. Potentially by the non-Jewish slave anyone can really pick him up once ownerless, but practically speaking he acquires himself for freedom, but potentially if he did not want to do so then he can become  slave of someone else. However that does not work by a Jewish slave, once he is free, automatically only he has rights to himself, so he never could potentially be owned by someone else and therefore the rules of hefker, making things ownerless should not work by a Jewish slave?

C.      The Torah doesn’t allow the laws of acquisition, zechiah, to work on a Jewish slave. The temporary owner cannot even sell him to another master.

 Answer: Granted the Torah just doesn’t allow him to be acquired by anyone but that’s just a technicality, the slave himself and the owner potentially had in mind for anyone to take him when the owner declares him ownerless so the laws of hefker can work. Only if the owner limits who is allowed to take what he declares ownerless will the laws of hefker not work.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 6 halacha 10

There is a very strange dichotomy on how to approach lashon hara if heard and could be useful. The Chofetz Chaim says though it’s forbidden to accept lashon hara according to the Torah it is permitted or even obligatory to be cautious for what you heard in order to protect yourself or others from possible harm but at the same time you also must believe in your heart that this person is no different than any other Jew and has a chezkas kashrus, he an upstanding good Jew even though someone said something bad about him. This has major ramifications in halacha for example, if someone says that he saw someone eating non-kosher out of spite, meaning he had two steaks in front of him, for example, one kosher and one non-kosher and he put aside the kosher and ate the non-kosher one that shows he doesn’t care about Hashem’s mitzvos as opposed to someone who’s a glutton and just likes non-kosher food because it tastes good. Now if there were two witnesses that testified in court that this person sinned to spite Hashem not just because he liked eating non-kosher food and the court makes a decision and declared that this is Jew is outside of “your nation” then though he is a Jew still but there are certain laws that don’t pertain to him, for example if he lost an object you found you don’t have to return it to him, if he asks for tzedaka you don’t have to give him, or even if he is captured you do have to redeem him. But this status only applies if it was declared in court, but if you just hear someone tell this story and it was never taken to court then the person must still be treated as a normal Jew all halacha applying to him. This is true even if he is known to be on the fringe and was known to do other songs but not bad enough to be out of ” your nation” you still can’t believe the story and treat him differently though you could take note of any concerns and take precautions if you think this person can harm you or others.

Posted on

Vayetzei – No Improvising

This Dvar Torah is dedicated by the Aryeh family in loving memory of:
אשה כשרה וחשובה חנה פייגא בת ר׳ נחום
Mrs. Feigie Aryeh
שחינכה וזירזה בניה על דרך התורה ,חסד,והיראה כל ימי חייה. 
פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה. 
צופיה הליכות ביתה ולחם עצלות לא תאכל.

Towards the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayetzei, after 14 years of learning in the Yeshiva of Shem V’Ever, Yaakov arrived in the outskirts of Haran, to find his uncle Lavan in hope of marrying one of his daughters. He arrived at the well where shepherds drew water for their flock and he inquired from the shepherds if they knew of Lavan. They answered affirmatively . “And he said to them, ‘[Are things going] well with him?’ And they said, ‘[Things are going] well, and behold, his daughter Rachel is coming with the sheep’” (Breishis 29:6).

The Sforno learns a lesson from Yaakov’s inquiry of how Lavan was doing. “For behold he put effort into finding out how Lavan is doing before he went to see him because it is improper for a guest to be demanding of his host if he is in the middle of a simcha, joyous occasion, or the opposite for some reason, [i.e. he’s dealing with a sad situation].” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Why did Yaakov feel he had to inquire from these shepherds, who the Sforno relates in the very next pasuk were not the most upstanding individuals, wouldn’t he potentially be setting them up to speak lashon hara, slander, about Lavan? Especially since he probably knew from his mother Rivka, and possibly his grandfather’s servant, Eliezer, that Lavan was a shady character. How can he set a stumbling block for them to potentially slander Lavan?

Furthermore, Yaakov was a very smart and intuitive person, he probably could have figured out on his own by walking into town and snooping around to find out how Lavan is doing and what he is up to. He is known for being subtle but sly for he was known as an Ish Tam, a quiet person who sat there and learned most of the time but was very acute, for he was able to pull off getting the blessings from his father Yitzchak, albeit with the help of Rivka, unbeknownst to him and Esav, as well as taking away the birthright from Esav. If so, he definitely had the brains and ability to figure out a situation and to improvise on how to handle any subtleties on the spot. If so, why then did he inquire of the Shepherds how Lavan is doing?

We see from here that when it comes to derech eretz, proper manners, one should not beat around the bush, and try to use back handed manners, even if they are potentially doable to figure out the proper mode of action. It is better to be straight forward and to the point, in order to be sure you are doing the proper thing. Of course, if something negative was said you cannot accept it as truth, rather just be cautious.

Yaakov was also a prominent nephew of Lavan who one would think Lavan would be overjoyed to welcome as a guest into his house no matter what the situation was at the time, on the contrary Yaakov could have enhanced or helped the situation whether it was presently good or bad. Yaakov was probably aware of that too but he still put in all the effort he can to first inquire about how Lavan is doing because it’s important to not take any chances rather just be straightforward, you don’t even need to many details,  to be sure you are doing the right thing.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #153

2. Question: Why does the Tur hold that Yochanan Ochel Challos did not have to divulge as part of his story that his father took him out of yeshiva?

Background:
A. Rebbe Yehuda HaNasi poskined that this person is a kohen based on the innocent story he gave of his childhood when he remembers his father carrying him on his shoulders and dipping him in the mikvah and then going to the threshing floor to collect teruma/tithes from the owners to eat in the evening, and hi friends would stay away from him and call me Yochanan Ochel Challos.
2. Tosfos holds that part of the story in Kesubos 56b was specifically that the father took him out of yeshiva and this was important so that it will rule out the possibility that he wasn’t a non-Jewish slave who can eat Teruma if his master is a kohen, but a non-Jewish slave cannot learn Torah so he wouldn’t be in Yeshiva. The Tur holds that the fact he was taken out of yeshiva was just part of the story but had no significance so he left it out.
C. Female non-slaves don’t get married so any children are out of wedlock and are automatically slaves to her master.

Answer: The Taz (Even HaEzer 2:1:1) says that we probably won’t know who the father is and even if we do the child should be with his master at all times so if he says his father carried him on his shoulders it must be the person talking is Jewish and according to his account that makes him a kohen.


Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #152

1.       Question: Why can a blind person say Kiddush Levana with others outside but a sick person stuck in bed cannot say Kiddush Levana if he only sees the shine from the moon through his window according to the Responsa Zera Emes (volume 3 chapter 43)?

 Background:

 A. If the sick person can see the moon itself from his window he can technically make Kiddush Levana because being outside is only better because it’s like going out to greet the king (Hashem) which shows more respect.

B. In the Mishna Berura (426:1) the Rema says one should not say Kiddush Levana unless it is night and he can benefit from the moon’s light. This means that this blessing is a blessing over getting satisfaction like by food, not a blessing over a mitzvah.

Answer: The blind person got as much benefit from the moon as he can get by the person next to him informing him that the moon is out but the sick person has the ability to get the full benefit of the moon he is just incapacitated at the moment so he cannot make the blessing if he does not actually get the full benefit of seeing the moon.