Author: Rabbi Milder

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.

Posted on

Noach – What is Righteousness

This Dvar Torah is dedicated in memory of Dr. Bill Ladner, who was the inspiration and reason of why I started Food for Thought. He passed away in his 90s last Thursday night. May this dvar Torah and all subsequent Food for thoughts be a merit to his Holy Neshama, Yehi Zichro Baruch.

This Dvar Torah is based on a shmuz I heard in Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Yerushalayim by Rav Moshe Chait zt”l in 2001. 

There are different ideas what a tzadik, a righteous person, is.

 This week’s Torah portion of Noach begins by saying: “These are the generations of Noach, Noach was a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noach walked with God” (Brieshis 6:9). Rashi there observes, “בדורותיו IN HIS GENERATIONS — Some of our Rabbis explain it (this word) to his credit: he was righteous even in his generation; it follows that had he lived in a generation of righteous people he would have been even more righteous owing to the force of good example. Others, however, explain it to his discredit: in comparison with his own generation he was accounted righteous, but had he lived in the generation of Avraham he would have been accounted as of no importance (cf. Sanhedrin 108a).”

Rashi states the argument that “In his generation” means a praise that he was righteous in his generation and all the more so, he would have been an even greater tzadik if he was in a generation among other righteous people, since being righteous among a generation of wicked people takes a lot of inner strength. However “In his generation” could also be an insult; for it can mean that while he may have been a tzadik in his generation, if he had lived at the same time as Avraham Avinu then he wouldn’t be considered anything special. He was righteous compared to the wicked; but compared to others he was nothing important.

Either way he is still called a tzadik. He has some level of righteousness which sets him apart.

There is a medrish Yalkut Shimone in parshas Vezos Habracha that elaborates on a pasuk from Eishes Chayil, “Many women have acquired wealth, but you surpass them all” (Mishlei 31:29). Chazal say about this pasuk that there are many righteous people in this world, but you are better then all of them, which allegorically refers to Moshe Rabbeinu. Adam HaRishon said to Moshe, “I am greater than you because I was created in the Image of Hashem, b’tzelem Elokim. Moshe said back that your greatness did not last too long. You could not even stay in that lofty state overnight, but for me the glory that was given to me from Hashem lasted for the rest of my life as the pasuk says, “Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes had not dimmed, nor had he lost his [natural] freshness” (Devarim 34:7). Moshe admitted that being a tzelem Elokim, having been created by Hashem Himself without physical parents, is a very high level, but what counts is lasting at a spiritually high level.

The medrish continues with Noach approaching Moshe and saying that he is greater than Moshe because he was the only one saved with his family. Since he was able to withstand all the wickedness and stay righteous, he was greater than Moshe. Moshe replied that Noach didn’t have the power to save his generation, but Moshe was able to change the evil decree cast on the Jews by Hashem, caused by the sin of the golden calf. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
There is a state of righteousness that doesn’t show greatness (like Noach). But changing the decision Hashem makes is greatness (like Moshe). It wasn’t enough that Moshe led them through the desert but Moshe rose to a level of righteousness that could even change Hashem’s decision!

Chazal say that Noach’s generation was so evil that Hashem said they don’t have a right to live and yet Noach didn’t let them influence himself and his family. However this wasn’t enough to fulfill his purpose in life, for Moshe was saying he could have gone farther in righteousness by affecting others for the good just as Moshe did.

It is not enough to become a Tzadik for yourself. Gadlus ha’adam, the greatness of man, is to recognize how much Hashem endowed man. One is not here for oneself; rather one is here, in this world, in order to make a change in the world around him or her.

At one-point Moshe said he’d rather be non-existent than harm a fellow Jew. This is selflessness.

The Rambam says that everyone is affected by external influences. It is just a question of what we do with these influences.
What is the essence of a leader, a gadol? He is concerned for others. It is very important for everyone to think about what I am doing for others, and how am I influential?

It is not enough to be a “righteous man in his generation;” Moshe was the person to emulate because he had an impact on others. We must be conscientious about what we do in and around the beis medrish, our workplace, our shul, in our home etc.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 6, halacha 6 footnote 16 with note on the footnote

We are back in action, slowly plugging away in Sefer Chofetz Chaim. Today we learned that the only excuse to stay still and not walk away from a conversation of lashon hara is if when you got there you did not think they would be speaking lashon hara and they were, and also if there is no way of escape. 

However if: 

A. When you came you can already over hear them speaking lashon hara, 

B. You are just too lazy to get up or 

C. You know that the nature of this group of people is to speak lashon hara and make fun of others then you can’t even sit down with them and should certainly overcome any laziness even if you disagree with what you are hearing and get up and leave. If you don’t you are included with them as wicked people who involve themselves in lashon hara. 

The footnote to note 16 in the Be’er Mayim Chaim points out that there are two problems in scenario A. and C. One is a rabbinic prohibition to stay away from hearing lashon hara, even if you are disgusted in what you hear and don’t accept it. It’s one thing to be passive and just not get up when you find yourself in a conversation of lashon hara and can’t get up, rebuke, or put your fingers in your ears but actively sitting down when you hear lashon hara being spoken where you are supposed to be going to or if you know these people always slander others, they love doing so then the rabbis forbid you to actively but yourself into that situation from the onset. You also transgress the positive mitzvah of clinging to Hashem by wantonly deciding to cling to this group of lashon hara speakers when actively sitting down with them. As for the second scenario of not getting up out of laziness when you could then you only transgress the rabbinic prohibition, not the positive mitzvah of “bo sidbak” clinging to Hashem since when you first came you did not think it would lead to lashon hara.  

But the Chofetz Chaim points out through a couple of gemaras that ignoring the rabbis and their enactments is a grave sin.

We gleaned a few insights from our discussion today:
 1. We see that we have to keep our ears open when coming to sit down in a group to be sure they aren’t speaking lashon hara. That might mean, for example at a wedding upon sitting down at your table if you hear lashon hara you would have to walk away, maybe act as if you have to get something or speak to someone before sitting down, then come back when you think they have stopped speaking lashon hara.
2. Another insight we realized that though putting your finger in your ears might be embarrassing but now a days we find people walking around with headphones, barring whether that is derech eretz/proper manners or not, but if you do it and you begin to hear lashon hara then you can turn on the music or Torah lecture, etc. so you cannot hear it and that is the same way without it being embarrassing as putting your fingers in your ears, perhaps even more effective.
Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #143

Question: Why has one fulfilled his or her mitzvah of tearing if he or she tears one’s garment over the dead even if done on Shabbos but not if one tears a stolen garment?

Background:

A.      The issue here is a mitzvah haba b’aveira, a mitzvah accomplished in a sin. It should be no different whether the sin is stealing or transgressing Shabbos.

B.      If one was eating matza on the night of Pesach which fell out on Shabbos, while walking from the private domain into the public domain thus transgressing the prohibition of carrying on Shabbos, he would not fulfill the mitzva of eating matzah since it was a mitzvah done in a sin. (See Be’ur HaGra note 48 in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:29.)

 Answer: The Taz and Shach (Yoreh Deah 340:28, 28: 16 in Taz and 42 in shach) say that the difference is that if the garment was stolen then the garment itself is in sin  (It’s a stolen object, just like the matza was a carried object) whereas if you just transgressed Shabbos with the shirt then the action is the problem but the garment itself isn’t part of the problem therefore it is not a mitzvah done through a sin.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #142

1.       Question: Why must a doctor who accidentally kills a patient run to the city of refuge but not a rebbe who strikes his student and accidentally kills him neither the court executioner, who gives the proper amount of lashes and accidentally kills the sinner?

Background:

A.      The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 336:1) says that the Torah gave permission for a doctor to cure and it is a mtzvah, it’s part of pikuach nefesh, saving a person’s life… If he heals people without the permission of the courts and mistakenly hurts someone he must pay for damages, but if he got permission, he is exempt. However, if he accidentally killed someone he must go into exile in the city of refuge.

B.      The Rambam in the laws of a Rotzeach/Murderer says that since the court executioner or rebbe accidentally killed the litigant or student while performing a mitzvah then he is exempt from escaping to the city of refuge.

  Answer: The Yad Avraham answers that a doctor is different because he did not do any mitzvah if the patient dies but the rebbe was performing a mitzvah of teaching his student and the executioner was performing a mitzvah of following the court ruling, the person just happen to have died in the process of performing that mitzvah therefore they are exempt from running to the city of refuge.