Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #88

Question: Why is the Pischey Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 289:1) unsure if you have to say a blessing if you take off your mezuzah to check it having in mind to put it back on but if you take off your Tallis or tefillin within mind to put it back on you don’t have to say another blessing?

Background:

 A. You could answer that it’s possible one might not think he’s putting the mezuzah back on if when checking it, it’s found unkosher. But besides that there is another reason to be in doubt, based on where the mitzvah is done which even if he took it down for some other reason like repairing the door and would put it right back onto the doorpost, still there would be a doubt whether you still need to make another blessing.

 A2. Tefillin and Tallis are put onto one’s body so the need of the blessing is based on what the person has in mind so if he plans on putting it back on no other blessing is needed but the mezuzah is put onto the door of the house so it is as if there is nothing to have the mezuzah in mind when being put back on so it’s possible to say that you always need a blessing when putting the mezuzah on the door post in whatever circumstance. Or you can say that the mezuzah belongs to the person and the person is in charge of the mitzvah so if he has in mind to put it back up he does not need to make a new blessing and that is the doubt.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #87

1.      Question: Why does the Shaagos Aryeh hold that saying Shema in the morning and night are two separate mitzvos but honoring your father and mother is one mitzvah but two parts to it?

Background:

A. The Maharatz Chiyos (Sanhedrin 56b) proves that honoring your parents is one mitzvah with two parts because there are only Ten Commandments not 11.

B. What is “michayev,” meaning what creates the obligation of each mitzvah?      

A1. By honoring one’s parents the obligation is because you are their child so the source of obligation is that you by yourself have to honor your mother and father. This is why it is one mitzvah with two parts to it. But what obligates one to say Shema is the time of day and night so it is two separate mitzvos.

Posted on

Vayigash – Political Juggling

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.

The very end of this week’s Torah portion of Vayigash describes how Yosef, with his masterful knowledge and expertise, single-handedly came up with a way to save Egypt and the countries around it from a deadly, paralyzing famine, after 7 years of plenty, exactly as predicted from his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams. He found favor in the eyes of the nation, for Hashem brings success to those that fear Him!

Yosef’s plan was to collect all the extra abundance of grain and produce that was harvested in the 7 years of plenty, to store them in warehouses as rations for the following 7 years of famine. He intentionally did not start to give out the rations to the people until they desperately needed them, lest they starve to death, and they gladly gave all their money in exchange for food. Once the money was all spent, they gave all their sheep and cattle in exchange for food. This all took place during the first two years of famine. Then, after two years of famine, Yaakov came down to Egypt with his family and the famine stopped, miraculously. So when the people came to Yosef begging for more food this time in exchange for land and their own servitude, Yosef took their land, but told them that he would give them seeds to plant, to produce crops. They would then be sharecroppers of the land, keeping 4/5 of what they produce, and they must give 1/5 to the king; which became a permanent tax. But Yosef never enslaved them, just used them as sharecroppers. Indeed, sharecroppers normally receive 1/5 of the profit whereas the owners receive the other 4/5, but Yosef switched that around, to which Pharaoh acquiesced, and the populace was quite pleased. As the pasuk says: “They replied, ‘You have saved our lives! Let us find favor in my lord’s eyes, and we will be slaves to Pharaoh’” (Breishis 47:25).

The Ralbag learns a very important lesson from the leadership of Yosef: “It is befitting of a person who has control over other people’s possessions that he should treat them with the utmost honesty and put as much effort as possible in ensuring their success, as well as not accepting anything from them even though he is the reason why the owners have their possession (or investments.) This is why the Torah tells us that Yosef brought all the money he earned, when selling grain, to the palace of Pharaoh and did not keep one iota. He then brought all the sheep and cattle to Pharaoh once the citizens had no money left. Afterwards he bought all the lands for Pharaoh in a way that Pharaoh was entitled to a fifth of the produce of the land. This was all due to [Yosef’s] good protection of the success over what he was commanded to accomplish, albeit that he contrived such a thing with much intellect, in a fashion that the citizens gave thanks to him and they said he had rejuvenated them,” [still in all he didn’t take anything for himself, though he deserved to receive part of what he earned.] (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Certainly Yosef must have had some salary or stipend that Pharaoh gave him to support himself and his immediate family. Yet Yosef treated his job with the utmost scrupulousness and didn’t take even one cent from anything that he collected while sustaining the Egyptians and the nations around them. He even put intense effort in ensuring the citizens had the best end of the deal, giving them 4/5 of the crops they produced and only taxing 1/5 for the king, as well as not truly enslaving them. With much effort, a thought out plan, and a lot of help from Hashem, Yosef brought the Egyptians and everyone else out of the great economic strife they were in. The citizens acknowledged his sincerity and success because he was honest and true to his word.

The Torah also tells us that: “Only the farmland of the priests he did not buy, for the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh, and they ate their allotment that Pharaoh had given them; therefore, they did not sell their farmland” (Breishis 47:22). The priests refered to here were the leaders of the communities, like the heads of local or state government; those that maintained law and order within the populace.

The lesson the Ralbag learns from this is that “it is befitting for a ruler, when he wants to do something which would be very difficult on his followers, that he should appease the leaders of his nation in a fashion that they will agree with his plan of action. If he does not do that in this exact manner, they might rebel against him. For this reason we find that when Yosef collected the grain for Pharaoh during the 7 years of plenty, besides what was needed to feed the citizens, Pharaoh made a condition to give the ministers of the land all their needs for provisions during the seven years of famine. This was the reason he was able to convince the citizens that he will sell them what’s needed on his own terms. He was not afraid the nation would rebel and steal the grain or assassinate him and steal the grain because he had the backing of the leaders.”
Yosef and Pharaoh understood that the devised plan would be very difficult to execute. Confiscating all the accumulated wealth, especially during such years of plenty, with only dreams as assurance to the populace that it is worth it and they should be trusted, would be hard for anyone to swallow. They knew they needed the support and backing of the lay leaders and local government officials to execute their plans. Therefore they guaranteed the local ministers all the provisions needed, up front, in exchange for keeping peace and civility during the tumultuous times, and it worked. 

But why wasn’t this looked at as a bribe, or even just unfair or unjust behavior which should have sparked a rebellion? Why were the upper echelons, the leaders, being treated differently and more favorably than the rest of the populace? Where was the justice, equality, and honesty in that?

We must say that since Yosef himself, the head honcho, took full responsibility for everything, acted with the utmost sincerity, honesty and efforts, which everyone was able to see and appreciate, then even if there were some decisions that might have looked, to the outside, a bit sketchy, they could and would be overlooked by the populace, since Yosef had earned their love and respect, as well as there being a system of everything being kept under control.

This is a lesson that the Ralbag learns for each one of us, even till today. We see from here that by going out of one’s way, above and beyond to ensure one can be trusted, that he really is honest and he sincerely puts all his efforts in creating a system of success then people will trust him no matter what type of decisions he makes.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 4 part 3 of halacha 4

In terms of a sage who is G-d fearing one certainly cannot divulge to anyone an obvious sin that you saw him do or even think ill of him because without a doubt he realized he did something wrong, had deep bitter remorse and has repented. The Sefer Yad Hakatana goes so far as to say that you cannot even rebuke him which the Chofetz Chaim qualifies that’s only could be true on the day after but there still is a mitzvah even for a student to rebuke his Rebbe respectfully at the time he sees him do something wrong. Also if it was a sin of monetary matters one can rebuke a G-d fearing sage until he gives back the money. However the Chofetz Chaim doesn’t understand why the Yad HaKetana says there is no mitzvah to rebuke because granted we have to judge him favorably but we wouldn’t say he is able to testify as a witness if he would have committed a sin wish would invalidate him from testifying until the judges know for sure that he repented, assuming isn’t enough when it comes to testimony and it assuming should just remove a positive mitzvah of rebuke.

The Chofetz Chaim in his note at the end of halacha 4 says that up until now we are dealing with transgressions that if told to anyone had no ramifications in this day and age. However in a case of a woman who committed adultery one must tell the husband because the husband is forbidden to stay married to her. However you only have a right to tell the husband if you saw the act firsthand not by hearsay. Also you can only tell him if he will believe you like two witnesses and separate himself from his wife. You can’t even tell him who the adulterer is because there is no point in telling the husband, therefore it is lashon hara unless divulging the name will convince him to separate from his wife. Other than that, if the husband won’t listen to you or anyone else then you can’t even tell the court of what you saw because they can’t do anything about it if the husband won’t believe anyone.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #86

1.     Question: Why does the Shev Shmaysa 1:1 rely on majority to resolve a doubt whether fruit are orlah outside of Israel but the Gemara at the end of The first chapter of Kiddushin says we always poskin leniently by orlah outside of Israel even if there is a majority poskening stringently which means we don’t go by the majority?

Background:

A. Orlah is the mitzvah not being allowed to eat the fruits from a tree the first 3 years after it was planted.

B. The Shev Shmaysa poskins that if one is in doubt whether fruit are orlah from a tree planted outside of Israel then he can be lenient and eat it unless there is a majority, let say the majority of fruit in the pile this fruit was found in is for sure orlah then the fruit in doubt is prohibited because it’s not considered a doubt anymore.

C. The Gemara at the end of the first chapter of Kiddushin says that whichever rabbi is lenient by orlah outside of Israel, the halacha is like him even if there are a majority of rabbis that argue on him.

D. The Shaarei Yosher (gate 3) says: Ruling according to the majority is a rule in the Torah, not that it is clarifying something. But the majority is being used as a clarifier when there is a doubt whether a certain specific fruit is orlah or not, outside of Israel.

Answer: Even though there is a rule in the Torah that we poskin like the majority but since there is also a rule that we permit orlah in doubt outside of Israel then it is not possible to poskin like the majority since there is still the reality that there is a doubt here. But when figuring out whether this fruit is orlah or not then majority can clarify that in fact it is orlah and we can’t be lenient since majority rules there is no doubt here.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #85

1.     Question: Why would a person be exempt for shooting an arrow at a guy holding a shield and the shield was taken away from him right before it reaches him and he is therefore hurt or even killed but in the same scenario if the arrow just happens to properly, halachically slaughter a bird it is kosher?

Background:

A. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 77b says in the name of Rava that because there was a shield in the way when the arrow was shot which would have prevented harm then the fact it was removed before the arrow reached the victim makes it indirect killing even if the shooter himself somehow removed the shield before the arrow reached its target.

B. There is a Gemara in Chullin 30b about a case of Rava checking Rebbe Yona bar Tachlifa’s arrows to make sure they were sharp enough before being used to shoot and shecht birds in midflight.

C. The Gemara in Chullin 15b-16a says that one who shechts using a knife powered by a water mill is not kosher because it is not your direct power, rather it is secondary power of your which is causing the slaughter to happen and therefore it is indirect and invalid.

D. By hurting or killing someone the sin is the act of killing or damaging.

E. The mitzvah of shechita does not need an act of shechita but that                                  shechita comes from his power. 


Answer: By the murder or injury we can say that it wasn’t his action of shooting that killed or hurt the person since the shield was in the way when the arrow was shot but by the slaughter, though the shechita would not have happened when the shield was there but it was taken away and it was because of the power of his shot that it was shechted properly therefore it is kosher.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 4, part 2 of halacha 4

The Chofetz Chaim quotes Rabbeinu Yona in his Shaarei Teshuva (219) that a person ideally should not even tell a Jewish court even if he testifies with another witness about someone else’s wrong doing if there is nothing that could be done about it. Rather the one who saw the wrong doing should go over to the transgressor and gently reprimand him in a fashion where it is likely that he will listen to you and try not to commit the sin again. There are circumstances where one should tell a Jewish court of wrongdoing like I’m circumstances where the court can take action to fix the problem, for example a robbery, any other monetary issue or injuries that could be compensated for. However because nowadays the Jewish courts cannot give Torah level lashes or capital punishment then transgresses line incense, or eating pig and shellfish or the like which doesn’t affect anyone else besides sinning against Hashem should certainly not be told to anyone in particular, that would constitute lashon hara/slander but even to inform the courts ideally is not good because we should assume this guy who is a middle of the road guy not necessarily very righteous but not a very bad person who purposely spited G-d, had remorse for his bad deed and hopefully repented. However the Chofetz Chaim does say there is one benefit that could be had by informing the court, in court as official testimony, but not just informing a judge outside of court which is no different than telling anyone else, that is if he did transgress a sin which most Jews no to be wrong then he is invalid to testify as a witness or to swear in court therefore if the court is informed of this person’s misdeeds they know not to accept him as a witness until they know for a fact that he has repented. Other than in court where it is official no one can believe he definitely did the sinful act if they heard about it second hand but they can only suspect misdeed.

Posted on

Miketz – Never Forget the Golden Years

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 Miketz, Yosef marries Osnas bas Potiphar. There are two sons born to them, Menashe and Ephraim. The Torah, when talking about Yosef naming Ephraim, says: “And the second one he named Ephraim, for ‘God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction’” וְאֵ֛ת שֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖י קָרָ֣א אֶפְרָ֑יִם כִּֽי־הִפְרַ֥נִי אֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּאֶ֥רֶץ עָנְיִֽי: (Breishis 41:52).

However the Daas Zekeinim adds that Yosef also named Ephraim after his grandfather and great grandfather, Avraham and Yitzchok. For they were referred to as ashes, אפר. Avraham, as it says “…although I am dust and ashes” (Breishis 18:27). Yitzchok was like ashes on the alter [by the Binding of Isaac (Akeidas Yitzchok)]. For Ephraim sounds like two [sets] of ashes (plural). This is why the Jews are referred to as Ephraim, as it says, “Is Ephraim a son who is dear to Me” (Yirmiyahu 31:19). (Click here for Hebrew text.)
This pasuk in Yirmiyahu has not only become a famous kumzitz song, but we say it every year in our mussaf shemone esray on Rosh Hashana. It is also the last pasuk of one the haftorahs recited on Rosh Hashana:

“Is Ephraim a son who is dear to Me? Is he a child who is dandled? For whenever I speak of him, I still remember him: therefore, My very innards are agitated for him; I will surely have compassion on him,” says the Lord. יטהֲבֵן֩ יַקִּ֨יר לִ֜י אֶפְרַ֗יִם אִם יֶ֣לֶד שַֽׁעֲשׁוּעִ֔ים כִּֽי־מִדֵּ֚י דַבְּרִי֙ בּ֔וֹ זָכֹ֥ר אֶזְכְּרֶ֖נּוּ ע֑וֹד עַל־כֵּ֗ן הָמ֚וּ מֵעַי֙ ל֔וֹ רַחֵ֥ם אֲרַֽחֲמֶ֖נּוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה:

The Radak on this pasuk in Yirmiyahu says that Hashem is saying: “The fact that I remember him constantly is as if he is a dear son to me who never sinned in my life just like a father who delights in his beloved son. At all times when I speak to the prophets I mention my love that precedes me [and so when they leave and they pass by He takes their affairs with Him at all times.] Therefore when I remember the earlier love My ‘innards’ are agitated for him in his terrible state in exile. I will have mercy upon him and I will take him out of exile.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Yirmiyahu is telling us how Hashem still loves his children even though they sinned, including the 3 cardinal sins of idolatry, adultery, and murder. For this they deserved to be exiled from their land and the first Beis Hamikdash destroyed. Indeed, they even intermarried in exile. Still, in all, Hashem did not stop loving them and eventually out of His own abundance of mercy redeemed them from exile into Israel and built the second Beis Hamikdash. However, in order to keep the abundance of love flowing, the Radak says that Hashem would frequently remind Himself of the early years, when the Jewish People were a delight, like a beloved son that didn’t do anything wrong. According to the Daas Zekeinim quoted above, this refers to the Jewish people in their infancy, in the times of Avraham and Yitzchok, which is why the Jewish people here are referred to as Ephraim.
But if Hashem is that naturally loving father, why does He need the reminder of the early years? His compassion and mercy for his precious son should always be there no matter what wrong the son does? It must be that because the son betrayed his father and did grievous sins which warranted a reprimand, or in this case a severe punishment, then a reminder of the early years is needed to arouse the original love for the child when they were just freshly born into this world; cute and innocent. For the love now is tainted by the fact that the son, Klal Yisrael, has betrayed and been sinful to Hashem.

Based on the fact that we should emulate Hashem, there is a very important lesson that comes from this pasuk. There are times when our children do things which are wrong and can get the parents upset, and which have repercussions, sometimes severe repercussions. An extreme example is if a child decides to intermarry. We see from here that we are not supposed to be overwhelmed by our natural love of our children and overlook the wrong they have done. Rather, steps must be taken to show your dislike towards their decisions. Yet, once that happens, it might become hard for the parents to love them the same way again, and, in severe circumstances like intermarriage, they might want to disown them. However we also see from here that it is fitting for the parents to look back on the early years, when their son or daughter was nice, cute, and innocent, beloved and cherished by their parents. The parents should constantly be reminding themselves of yesteryear, to arouse love and mercy upon their wayward children, as if they never sinned, while still punishing them for the wrong they have done. In this way they won’t completely disown them and are ready to invite them back, and even possibly try to help them back at any moment in order that they have the potential to return on the positive path of serving Hashem just as Hashem treated the Jewish people in Babylonian exile.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #84

2.      Question: Why are you allowed to add permissible wood to muktzah wood into an oven on Yom Tov as a permissible means of burning the wood and cooking with its heat but there is an opinion in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 677:4) that if oil already used for the Chanukah menorah got mixed up less than 60 times its amount in regular oil you cannot add more oil to nullify it?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch In Orach Chaim 507:2 says that one may add wood on top of muktza wood on Yom Tov to burn them in an oven because it is permissible to purposefully nullify a rabbinic prohibition which can be fixed as long as one does not get direct benefit from it when it is burning up.

B. The Chanukah oil is also rabbinic and some do permit purposefully adding more oil in order to nullify it and use it for whatever purpose you want like a light source.  (See Mishna Berura 677:4:20.) 

Answer: The Mishna Berura (507:2:8) says the reason why the other opinions don’t permit nullifying the oil is because in this circumstance you will be getting benefit from the light of the fire in the candle while the oil or wax is still in existence but by the wood the benefit of heating up the oven isn’t coming from the heat of the wood until after the fire burns it up.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #83

Question: Why aren’t we strict by Shabbos candles to not light from one candle to another just as we are stringent to not light Chanukah candles from one candle to another?

Background:

A. The Rema in Orach Chaim 674:1 says we have a custom to be strict by Chanukah candles to not light them from one candle to another since the main mitzvah is with one candle and the rest aren’t totally for the mitzvah (rather only to glorify the mitzvah.)

B. Halachically one only needs one candle for Shabbos candles we light at least two as a reminder of Shamor vizachor, keeping and remembering the Shabbos which refers to the negative and positive mitzvos associated with Shabbos.

C. Shabbos candles were enacted for Shalom Bayis so it would be easy to see in the house and make Shabbos more enjoyable.

D. One can light from one candle to another if there is an equal level of mitzvah for example two roommates on the first night of Chanukah can each light from each other’s candle. 

Answer: Each Shabbos candle makes it brighter in the room and is more directly adding to the mitzvah of delighting in Shabbos so they each have equal Mitzvah status and can light one from the other even though it is enough with one. But by Chanukah there is nothing integrally being enhanced to the mitzvah by each extra candle it is just a way to beautify the mitzvah more by lighting an additional candle each day therefore one shouldn’t light from one candle to the other (See Dirshu footnote 7.)