Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Naso – Expectations to Appreciate What You Can Have

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.

In this week’s Torah portion of Naso we discuss the status of a nazir. A nazir separates oneself from this world in 3 ways; he or she cannot cut their hair, drink wine or any grape products and cannot come in contact with the dead. An average nazirus [period of being a nazir]  is thirty days. The Torah states, “Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man or woman who sets oneself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the Lord” (Bamidbat 6:2), and Rashi asks there, “Why is the section dealing with the nazarite placed in juxtaposition to the section dealing with the sotah? To tell you that he who has once seen a sotah in her disgrace should abstain from wine, because it may lead to adultery (Sotah 2a)…Too keep himself aloof from wine for the sake of Heaven. (Nedarim 9b, Sifri Naso 1:84.)”

The nazir is separating oneself from worldly matters for formidable reasons, for the sake of heaven; for example, in order to not fall into sin. Yet the Gemara in Taanis 11a says, “Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraisa: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori (kal vachomer)? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner.”

The Torah says a sacrificial atonement has to be brought by the nazir if he was in contact with the dead and ruined his first nazirus (see Rashi in Nazir 19a that says that a nazir is really liable as soon as he began to abstain from wine but he only is allowed to attain his atonement when he messes up and has to start all over again.) The Torah specifically states, “The kohen shall prepare one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering and atone on his behalf for sinning on his soul, and he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Bamidbar 6:11).

The Daas Zekeinim explaining what exact sin the nazir has done saying that “sinning on his soul” (מֵֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָ֖א עַל־הַנָּ֑פֶשׁ) is similar to the language used in Shoftim 20:16, “All these could sling a stone at a hair-breadth and not miss.” (כָּל־זֶ֗ה קֹלֵ֧עַ בָּאֶ֛בֶן אֶל־הַֽשַּׂעֲרָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א יַחֲטִֽא). The Targum says it means “he changed from;” in this case he changed his soul and prevented it from drinking wine. This is similar to the drasha brought by Chaza”L, ‘who distressed himself abstaining from wine.’ (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Daas Zekeinim is explaining this pasuk based on the gemaras in Nazir and Taanis which say that a nazir deserves an atonement for just abstaining from what he was once permitted. This isn’t a sin per say but it still is deserving of an atonement because he is going against the norm and what he has been accustomed to. Why is this a problem, especially in lieu of the fact that Rashi pointed out earlier that he is doing this for the sake of Heaven, to not indulge too much in worldly matters, and to stay away from sin? Also, wine is known to be something which can cause much harm or inappropriateness, like what happened by Noach and Lot. So it would seem that what a nazir is doing is a very positive thing; so why is he deserving of an atonement even if he did not mess up on his nazirus?

It would seem that forbidding something which G-D permits to you is a problem because you are changing something which  you are allowed to have. The reason why this is a problem deserving of an atonement can be understood from the words of the Mesillas Yesharim and Orchos Tzadikim.
The Mesilas Yesharim in his section on Kedusha, chapter 26, says “Behold, for the man sanctified with the holiness of his Creator, even his physical deeds become actual matters of holiness. A sign of this is in “the eating of temple offerings”, which our sages of blessed memory said: “the priests eat and the owners obtain atonement” (Pesachim 59b)… But for the Holy man who constantly clings to his G-d, whose soul treads freely among true thoughts in love of his Creator and fear of Him, behold, it is considered as if he is walking before G-d in the Land of the Living, while still here in this world. Such a man is himself considered as a tabernacle, a temple and an altar. This is as our sages said (Gen. Rabba 62:6)… For the Shechina (divine presence) dwells within them just as it dwelled in the Temple. Due to this, the food they eat is like a sacrifice offered upon the fire of the altar, for certainly it was a great elevation for those things to be offered on the altar, since they were offered before the Shechina… So too, the food and drink which the holy man eats elevates that food or drink as if it had actually been offered on the altar… and “[if a man wishes to offer a wine libation upon the altar], let him fill the throat of the Torah scholars with wine” (Yomah 71a). This does not mean that Torah scholars were craving for food and drink, G-d forbid, that one fills their throats like one stuffs a glutton. Rather, the matter is according to the intent I explained. That Torah scholars who are holy in their ways and in all their deeds are actually just like the Temple and the altar, for the Shechina (divine presence) literally dwells upon them as it did in the Temple. Thus, what is offered to them is as offered on the altar, and the filling of their throat is as the filling of the basins.”  We see how a righteous person can take something mundane, even wine, and make it holy when being used with proper intentions, and this Nazir wants to lose that potential opportunity by abstaining from wine?! Putting oneself in that potential missed opportunity deserves an atonement! (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Furthermore the Orchos Tzadikim in the Gate of Happiness discusses the pros and cons of drinking, and by the advantages he says: “From all of these citations we can know the praise of wine when it is drunk according to the measure of the wise who drink a specified amount — so that the intelligence may be stronger than the wine and not the wine be stronger than the intelligence, and who drink at a set time, together, and not with those barren of knowledge, vain and empty. For wine adds deep wisdom, a tree of life for those that hold it. And wine adds wisdom to the intelligent person but doubles the folly of the fool. It revives the love of a friend but stirs up the enmity of a foe. It opens the hand of the generous and hardens the heart of a miser. And thus should be the manner of one who drinks wine. He should use the wine as a healing for his worry and thus strengthen himself in Torah to study it with joy, for when a man is plunged in grief he cannot study and even judges of courts of law, when they are grieved, cannot give a clear judgment. Grief also disturbs the concentration of the mind on one’s prayer. Also, when a man is plunged in pain or grief he has not the strength to fulfill the request of someone who is speaking to him or is asking him for a favor. And it is written : “In an acceptable time have I answered you” (Is. 49:8). Therefore, an intelligent person should direct himself in drinking wine in this manner — that he should remember not to drink too much so as to be compelled by his condition to neglect his work and his affairs. And, moreover, he must guard himself from drinking so much that he neglects his study of the Torah and his prayers, or until he becomes too frivolous and lightheaded. And he should not drink to the extent that he reveals his secrets or the secrets of others. And if you will drink in this moderate measure, wine will not become loathsome to you. Even on Holidays and Festivals, of which it is written : “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deut. 12:18), one should not prolong his drinking more than is proper, as it is said : “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart” (Ibid. 28:47). From this you learn that we have not been commanded to rejoice in a manner that the Creator of all is forgotten. For it is impossible to serve the Lord, may He be Blessed, out of lightheadedness, or laughter, or drunkenness.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Ultimately there is a balance that must be made when it comes to indulging in worldly pleasures, especially drinking wine. We cannot deny that Hashem did create a concept of a nazir, as there is a whole portion about it in the Torah and a whole masechta dedicated to it in the gemara. Therefore it must be permitted, and possibly needed, for some people to best stay out of trouble; however we see from here that it is not the ideal situation. One should preferably use drinking wine and other worldly matter for the sake of Heaven, to serve Him  optimally, as Hashem intended for us in this world. For this reason, a nazir, even if he is abstaining for only thirty days and even if he did not break his nazirus, really is in need of atonement.

We see from here how much we must appreciate what Hashem gives us in this world and to use it wisely because that is what Hashem wants us to do.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 5, halachos 5 and 6

Today we learned about the subtleties of speech. A statement can be taken two ways so you have to be very careful with not only what you say but how you say it or about whom you are talking about, time, place, etc. You should be so quick to say I am just trying to help the guy if it might harm him or her. The important rule of thumb that he quotes from the Rambam is that whatever you say that might harm a person physically, monetarily, or cause undo pain and suffering psychologically, or make him terrified of others is lashon hara.

We first discussed that if you call a person weak it might harm him if he is a construction worker, for example, by trait then who will hire him, or if he is weak minded and is a teacher who will hire him? If he is called weak minded maybe people will think he can’t handle a classroom. That is clearly lashon hara. On the other hand if your intent in calling someone weak or not strong is to tell people he is not controlling or over powering then it is not lashon hara, therefore you have to way all the possibilities and ramifications before opening your mouth to speak.

Similarly if you tell people that so and so is not wealthy then it could e really bad because people might not want to work with him or give him alone but on the other hand they might help him and give him tzedakah, so again one has to be careful what he says and t whom he says it to, and how it comes across.

Furthermore, the same statement can be taken two different ways depending on who you talk about. If you say about a guy who is learning in Kollel and being supported by his in-laws that he only learns 3-4 hours a day that is lashon hara. But if you talk about a hard-working entrepreneur who is trying to support a family on his own that he learn Torah 3-4 hours a day that a tremendous praise.

Similarly if you say tell people how a lower income person gives a dollar to anyone who goes over to him and asks for money that is a praise but to say that a millionaire gives a dollar to each person that asks for money, only a dollar, constitutes lashon hara.

One last interesting point the Chofetz Chaim makes is that when the Torah says “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Chazal say “Don’t do something to others which you would hate to be done to you” that does not give you the excuse to say “What’s wrong with saying this guy only learns 3 or 4 hours a day, if people would be saying that about me I would be quite happy!”  That is not what Chaza”l meant, rather you have to view yourself in the other guy’s shoes, and if you were him, you would not want that to be done or said about yourself.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #117

2.       Question: According to the opinion brought in the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 637) who says one is allowed to steal from a non-Jew but it is not considered yours, meaning the non-Jew still owns it, why would a lost object of a non-Jew which we poskin a Jew is allowed to keep be any different since the Divrei Chaim and Gilyon Maharsha both say the lost object of a non-Jew is considered ownerless even before he gives up on it. Why is the lost object of a non-Jew owned by the Jew if he finds and takes it but if a Jew steals from a non-Jew even if it is permissible why does it still belong to the non-Jew (as long as he does not give up on it)?

Background:

A. One small hint, but why does it make for a difference: When the non-Jew’s object got into the hands of the Jew by the lost object the non-Jew didn’t have it but when it got into the hands of Jew when stealing it was in the hands of the non-Jew.

 Answer: Because the object was in the non-Jew’s hands that gives him ownership and keeps it with him even after it is stolen since he had control over the object but the lost object, the non-Jew has no control over the object therefore there is nothing to link ownership to him.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #116

1.       Question: It is explained in Bava Metzi’a 33a that if you can only save one lost object flowing down a stream or in a fire etc., either yours or your friend, yours comes first. For the verse “There shall not be a pauper among you” teaches us that your stuff comes before anyone else’s. But why is the mitzvah of returning a lost object different than any other mitzvah where we poskin that we must be willing to spend up to a fifth of our property to perform the mitzvah? The same thing should be true by the mitzvah of returning a lost object, that one should forgo his object if it’s value is less than a fifth of his entire property in order to save and give back his friends object to fulfill the mitzvah!? Why does what obligate the mitzvah of returning a lost object not trigger the obligation of spending up to a fifth but other mitzvos like tzedaka does?

Background:

A. The obligation of spending up to a fifth of one’s property to fulfill a positive mitzvah applies in a case like tzedaka where what obligates a person to give is the poverty of his friend.

B. What obligates the mitzvah of returning a lost object is the loss of Jewish money.

Answer: Loss of money is only an exemption from doing the mitzvah and by giving tzedaka for example that exemption is only applied by spending more than a fifth. But by returning a lost object which the Torah says your lost object is more important than your friends then what is obligating the mitzvah of returning the lost object is not there to require you to spend more than a fifth.

Posted on

Shavuos – No One Published “Understanding G-D for Dummies”

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.

בָּר֥וּךְ כְּבֽוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמְּקוֹמֽו
 “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place” (Yechezkel 3:12). This pasuk is said, at a minimum, 3 times every morning in our davening, as well as being in every Kedusha. What is the meaning behind this pasuk and why does it conclude the haftorah for the first day of Shavuos?

The Haftorah for the first day of Shavuos comes from the first chapter of Yechezkel which discusses the Maaseh Merkava, Hashem’s “Heavenly Chariot,” because the vision that Yechezkel had in his prophecy is similar to what took place when Hashem gave the Torah to the Jewish people at Har Sinai. The Mishna in the beginning of the second perek of Chagiga says that one may not expound on this subjectexcept with one individual who is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. The Rambam explains the concept of the Maaseh Merkava as trying to understand in detail the reality of Hashem and His description, as well as angels, the soul,  intellect, and what happens after death. The Bartenura argues and says it refers to using “Hashem’s Crown” through mentioning Hashem’s Holy Names, including how exactly angels are arranged in Heaven, and tapping into Divine Intervention, Ruach HaKodesh. Either way, it is a very deep concept which we will not get into. Then the Haftorah seems to randomly conclude with the pasuk in perek 3 pasuk 12 of Yechezkel:

And a wind lifted me up, and I heard behind me the sound of a great uproar: “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.” יבוַתִּשָּׂאֵ֣נִי ר֔וּחַ וָֽאֶשְׁמַ֣ע אַֽחֲרַ֔י ק֖וֹל רַ֣עַשׁ גָּד֑וֹל בָּר֥וּךְ כְּבֽוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמְּקוֹמֽוֹ:

The Gemara in Megilla 31a lists which haftorah we read for each Yom Tov, and does not mention this last pasuk. The earliest known source I was able to find was the Tur Orach Chaim, siman 494, which mentions reciting this last pasuk after reading the first chapter of Yechezkel as the Haftorah. It would seem random to throw in a pasuk, two perakim later, to conclude the Haftorah. What seemingly is the connection?
The Yalkut Shimone  puts the pasuk into context, “Rebbe Pinchas the Kohen, the son of Chama said in the name of Rebbe Reuvain, ‘What does and I heard behind me’ mean? After My friends and I praised Hashem I then heard ministering angels praise and declare, ‘Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.’ And it says, ‘When the morning stars sing together, and all the angels of G-D shout’ (Iyov 38:7).”  Though very true that “Then the Ofanim, and the Holy Chayos with great noise raise themselves towards the Seraphim. Facing them they give praise saying ‘Blessed is the glory of Hashem from His place,’” as we say every morning in our davening, as alluded to in this medrish; yet  the Radak says on this pasuk that Yechezkel is foretelling through prophecy an appearance of him being lifted by the wind to go into exile, and when he was lifted by the wind he heard a voice from after the place he had his prophesy and the voice said, “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.” This means to say that when Hashem’s Holy Presence removed itself from His place on top of the covering between the Keruvim because the Jewish people were diminishing His honor when He was amongst them, as a sign of His zealotry. It is as if He added to His honor when removing Himself from them. “Blessed” refers to adding on good and honor… And the great sage, the Rambam, explained “From His place” to mean according to His loftiness and His basic role in reality. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
According to the Radak, Yechezkel was prophesizing about Hashem’s Holy Presence leaving the Beis HaMikdash, which led to the destruction of the First Temple. Granted, the Jews did not deserve Hashem’s Presence amongst them with all the miracles that took place daily in the Beis HaMikdash; but why is it considered an added honor for Hashem by acting with zeal to remove Himself from the Holy of Holies? Two wrongs do not make a right! The ideal place for Hashem’s Holy Presence in this world is the Holy of Holies above the Holy Ark, ideally with Hashem’s children following His commands. Why then did the Radak say that by leaving the Jewish people, because they were diminishing His honor, he was then adding honor to Himself?

In reality, the ideal setting for Hashem’s greatness in this world is to rest amongst His children as He did when He initially gave the Torah to us at Har Sinai with all the lightning, thunder, shofar blasts and legions of angels, and as he continued when they erected the Mishkan and eventually the Beis HaMikdash with the Shechina resting above the Aron Kodesh on top of the Keruvim. However, as the Radak concludes, by quoting the Rambam, ultimately Hashem’s greatness and honor is defined by His loftiness and with respect to His basic role in reality, which is in fact a mystery to us, and we can only conjecture using our finite brains.

For this reason it seems very apropos for the haftorah which discussed the Maaseh Merkavah, such a complex concept, to conclude with this pasuk since it is acknowledging how complex the loftiness and very concept and reality in fact is the Almighty, Blessed Be He, King Of All Kings, Master Of The Universe, Hashem.

It is also very apropos for Shavuos itself, because we must appreciate more and more the profundity, depth, and magnitude, of the gift Hashem gave us. By realizing and gaining a better recognition of who the author of the Torah, the blueprints of creation and guidebook for life, is, then we can better appreciate how important it is to serve Him with every detail and minutia as He intended when giving us the Torah at Har Sinai.

Good Yom tov,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #115

Question: If a bris falls out on a Sunday during the mourning time of the Omer, the Chasam Sofer says one cannot shave Erev Shabbos but if Lag B’omer falls out on Sunday then the Rema says one can shave on Erev Shabbos. What is the difference between a bris and Lag B’omer?

Background:

A.      The Rema (Orach Chaim 493:2) says that one should not cut his hair until Lag B’omer itself, but not by evening, however if it falls out on Sunday there is a custom to cut hair on Friday in honor of Shabbos. And one who is making a bris for his son can cut his hair during sefira in honor of the bris. The Mishna Berura (13) adds that the father, sandek and mohel can get a haircut the night before he goes to shul between mincha and maariv. If the bris is on Shabbos he is permitted to get a haircut the day before even before chatzos, midday.   

Answer: See Dirshu footnote 27 that the difference between a bris and Lag B’omer is that a bris is only a yom tov, joyous occasion for the individual whereas Lag B’omer is a yom tov for everyone.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #114

  Question: Why does the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 494:1) and others say you cannot fast on Shavuos a taanis chalom, fast after a bad dream, but can fast on other yom tovim and Shabbos?       

Background:

A.      A taanis chalom is fasted by an individual if he is so unsettled about a dream one has that he feels he must fast as an atonement to relieve his anguish. He is even allowed to do so on Shabbos and Yom Tov, though he has a mitzvah to delight on these days and is forbidden to fast, but in this case fasting is what brings this anguished person to delight so he is permitted to do so.

B.      The Gemara in Pesachim 68b says that everyone agrees that on Shavuos one must dedicate part of the day to “lachem” to oneself, in delighting in the day and not just learning and praying the whole day. Rashi there explains that one should be joyous with food and drink to show how one is satisfied and accepts the day the Torah was given. Even learning Torah the whole day would not suffice.   

                                                                                                                   

Answer: On Shavuos one is obligated to share with others your enjoyment over accepting the Torah which is  clearly seen by having a meal, it is not enough to learn Torah the whole day, or to fast even though they both bring delight for the person.     (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 594:3:11:17.)   

Posted on

Bamidbar – Flags of Love

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.

Flags and banners are used to represent a nation or group of people; a country, state, city, university, or even a sports team. There is usually a lot of symbolism put into making a flag which represents what the group stands for.

This week we start the fourth book of the Torah, Bamidbar. In this parsha, besides the census, Hashem sets up how the Jewish people will travel and encamp in the desert. He also gave each one of them a flag, with the color of the flag corresponding to the stone each tribe was represented by on the choshen of the kohen gadol. Each flag also had it’s own unique emblem; for example Yehuda had a lion, representing his kingship; Yissachar had a sun and moon sewn on their flag because they were experts in astronomy; Zevulun had a boat on their flag representing the sea trade they were destined to do on the coasts of Israel; Menashe had a bull; Ephraim had an antelope; Binyamin had a wolf; etc. Each emblem embodied a unique characteristic about each tribe which was hinted to by Yaakov in his blessings to his children before he did.

The Medrish Tanchuma (Bamidbar, 10) presents a novel reason why Hashem gave each tribe a flag. The pasuk says “Each man by his flag…,” “אִ֣ישׁ עַל־דִּגְל֤וֹ” (Bamidbar 2:2), this is what the pasuk refers to when it says “Let us sing praises for your salvation, and let us assemble in the name of our G-d” “וּבְשֵׁם־אֱלֹהֵ֥ינוּ נִדְגֹּ֑ל” (Tehillim 20:6).  “Let us sing praises of your salvation as it says, “Hashem saved” (Shemos 14:30). “And let us assemble in the name of our G-d,” The Blessed Be He’s name is like our name, and He made for us flags as it says, “Each man by his flag with signs.”   Hashem showed an immense amount of love towards the Jews by making flags just as the angels [had when they came down by the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai, which the Jews coveted,] in order to recognize the children of Reuvain, the children of Shimon etc.individually. How do you know this is a show of love? For it says, “He brought me to the house of wine, and his attraction to me [was symbolic of his] love,” “הֱבִיאַ֨נִי֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הַיָּ֔יִן וְדִגְל֥וֹ עָלַ֖י אַֽהֲבָֽה” (Shir HaShirim 2:4). Rebbe Abahu said, how do we learn from the pasuk “and his attraction to me was love,” for “He brought me to the house of wine.” What is this compared to? To a wealthy person who had a cellar filled with wine. He entered one day to check on the wine and he found that everything had turned into vinegar. On his way out of the cellar he found one barrel of good wine. He said that this barrel is the most beloved in the entire cellar. So to Hashem created 70 nations but he only enjoyed the Jewish people as it says, “He brought me to the house of wine.” בֵּ֣ית הַיָּ֔יִן 2 yuds equal 20 and the nun equals 50 which all equals 70, referring to the 70  nations and from all of them He only loved the Jews as it says, “and his attraction to me was love.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Medrish is telling us that Hashem gave us  flags as a show of love towards his children so that he can easily recognize them. But why does each tribe need a flag? Also, how does this fit with the parable which had only one love? There was only one barrel of wine which did not spoil, which is the one that the wealthy person cherished. So too Hashem loves the Jewish people more than any other nations of the world because we chose to stay good and accept Hashem’s guide book for mankind, the Torah, to follow and live by it, where as all the other nations chose to reject the Torah and spoil their lives with whatever they chose to do. So why should there be 12 flags? One flag for the Jewish people should be enough for Hashem to show his love and to give recognition of the Jewish people’s unique status?

It would seem that a true show of love is not made through just a general symbolic gesture like giving a gift or banner as recognition of that love; but rather individualizing that love, letting the one receiving the love show his or her shining colors in their own unique way, and capturing that uniqueness by showing how much you appreciate it. That is a better expression of love. Which is why Hashem wanted every tribe, with their own unique personality and character, to have their own unique flag, tailored made for them, so that Hashem will recognize and love them for being the individuals they are.

Later in the medrish it gives another interpretation of the pasuk in Shir HaShirim: “and his attraction to me was love,” Hashem says that even if a person is sitting, involved in Torah, from Torah to Torah, halacha to halacha, pasuk to pasuk, for me this is love and I cherish him, and his attraction to me was love.

The Etz Yosef explains that instead of reading the pasuk, “וְדִגְל֥וֹ עָלַ֖י” the medrish switches the lamed and gimel to read “וְדְִל֥גוֹ עָלַ֖י” which means skipping, this means to say that a person shouldn’t say, “How can I learn Torah if there are many areas which are to hard to understand, and I have to skip them,” Hashem says “Nevertheless I love you.”
What a powerful message of encouragement for of all of us! Even though the Orchos Tzadikim in the Chapter on Remembrance, 5th reminder says, “The fifth thing to remember is the mercy of God, who has shown mercy to him by giving him His pure Torah. Now if a king of flesh and blood had sent him a letter and he read it through and there was something in it that he did not understand, what anguish he would feel because he did not understand what the king was commanding him. And there is no doubt that if there was in the vicinity even a very insignificant person who knew how to explain that which he did not understand, he would hasten to go to him and would not be ashamed at all to inquire. How much more, then, should he be grateful for the Torah of our God (which explains everything).” One might think that if he is having difficulty understanding something of such magnitude he might as well give up then to skip around, that is a disgrace to Hashem and his Torah! Hashem responds I still love you even if you skip around. Do not give up entirely it is better for you to learn what you can and skip the hard part, and I still love you for doing that. Certainly, if one toils and sweats over understanding every detail of Hashem’s Torah, Hashem will be overjoyed but if you do not give up Hashem still loves you for whatever you do learn.

Hashem sets the bar for such detail one must appreciate andhow to express love for another.

Posted on

SeferChofetz Chaim chapter 5 halacha 4

Today learned the severity of lowering the respect of someone in the eyes of others. If a person is looked at as an upstanding individual in his community with good character and a Torah scholar then one can’t tell the community leaders that where this individual use to live back in the day he was not of such stature. This might belittle the individual in the eyes of the community or even cause him to lose his job.

If it is a rav of a congregation even if it is true that he is not as big of a scholar then what people think he is, it is still a lack f respect to the Torah and this Rav’s own dignity to belittle him in the eyes of his congregants. It might cost him his job and the standard of Torah observance might be lowered. He is at least trying to help people observe Torah and any really difficult questions he hopefully sends to other Rabbis who might have answers.

Also many times people don’t like hearing rebuke and will decide not to like rabbis or yeshiva students who try to help them go on the proper Torah path so they will unfortunately spread rumors about them in the next place they live. This is based on a gemara in Kesubos 105b. The episode in the Gemara Bava Kama 117a where Rebbe Yochanan calls Rav Kahana a fox after Reish Lakish told Rebbe Yochanan that the lion came back from Bavel and Rav Kahana did not understand Rebbe Yochanan’s shiur as well. Calling him Rav Kahana a fox in front of Reish Lakish did not constitute lashon hara because everyone saw he was not able to answer Rebbe Yochanan’s questions and was sent back from the first row to the last row of the shiur, so by calling him a fox instead of a lion he did not lose any respect which was not lost beforehand. Rebbe Yochanan was also teaching a lesson to stay in Israel because the air of Israel makes you smarter and able to learn learn better then outside of Israel.

This is also true for a newlywed who just got married and is learning in Kollel. To say he is not as serious of a learner then he looks like will eventually get back to his in-laws and they won’t respect him as much and it will trickle down to his wife and kids eventually.

The same thing is true about any professional, to say he is not as much of an expert then people think can cause him to lose his livelihood. Even if he is a novice, he must start somewhere, and he will learn and get better on the job so if people think he can do a good job let him do it.

When you do know there can be a serious problem, for example a community is looking to hire a rabbi, or elect and official and you know if they do so it will be a big mistake, then divulging information in order to avoid potential problems will be discussed at length in Hilchos Rechilus chapter 9, b’ezras Hashem.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #113

  1. Question: Why should you bury the dead and then eat the yom tov meal on second day yom tov if he or she died the night before, or everything was ready quickly if the person died in the morning but on the eve of Pesach you should first eat then bury the dead?

Background:

  1. Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 526:12) says when a person dies on the night of the second day of yom tov they should get up early and bury the person before they daven. If the person dies in the morning they should bury the person after they eat the yom tov meal. The Mishna Berura (52) adds that nevertheless if everything is ready, the hole is dug and the rags he is buried in are ready so it’s possible to bury the person before eating without stopping the joy of yom tov, then it is better to bury before eating because a Medrish on the verse “don’t eat on the blood” says that it is forbidden to eat a set meal before burying the dead.
  2. The Mishna Berura (443:6) points out that on Erev Pesach it says it is not appropriate to eat a meal and then bury the dead. It does not say it is forbidden, and if there is no time to eat chometz before the time it becomes forbidden then certainly, they can eat before burying the dead. The Shaar Hatzion (9) explains there that it is not a disgrace to the dead person if they eat before burial, why not?

Answer: . There is no disgrace to eat chometz before erev Pesach before burying the dead because if they bury the dead first they might be in more of a rush because they would be concerned about eating chometz too late, or it might actually happen that they eat chometz when they aren’t supposed to because they buried the dead first which is more of a disgrace. This problem does not exist on yom tov itself, even if they might rush to finish in order to enjoy there meal, that isn’t a concern because they have the whole day to eat, they aren’t timebound as by chometz on erev Pesach.