Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test # 78

  1. Question: Why do you have to say a blessing on each animal you shecht if they weren’t all in front of you when you started, but if you make a blessing on a food like a fruit you don’t need to make a blessing for another one that comes afterwards even if it wasn’t in front of you when you made the blessing?

Background:

  1. The Tur (Yoreh Deah 19) poskins that in the beginning when you said a blessing there were many animals to shecht and afterwards more animals were brought, one must say another blessing for each animal that was not there when the first blessing was made.
  2. The Tur (Orach Chaim 206) says that if one makes a blessing on fruit that was in front of him and afterwards more is brought out of that kind then a new blessing is not needed even if they were not in front of you when the blessing was made.
  3. One is more settled when eating then when shechting.
  4. There is a Ra”n in Nedarim 17a that says if a person vows to be a nazir on condition of eating  bread then his vow is contingent on eating a kazayis of bread, and if he eats many kazaysim with being warned after each kazayis then he has multiple nazarite vows he must fulfill but if he was not warned in between each kazayis then he only has to be a nazir once, for 30 days. This, the Ra”n concludes implies that if not for warnings in between, eating multiple kazaysim at a time is considered one long process of eating.

Answer: Either you can say that because one is set and sitting down to eat then it’s expected that more food comes out so anything that comes out is automatically in mind to be eaten as part of the first blessing. Whereas by shechita the mindset is more likely that once all the animals around him are done there is no more coming so a new blessing must be made for more that come in. Or you can say that any fruit that comes out during the meal is one big eating which never really stopped so only one blessing is needed, whereas each animal is a different shechita which needs a new blessing unless specifically having in mind for more than one at a time which you know about. (Mishmeres Chaim 2:91)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #77

  1. Question: What is the difference between shechita and chalitza? Why if shechita is done specifically in mind just to cut the animal and not to do a kosher slaughtering it is not kosher even if a kosher slaughtering was halachically done but if one does the process of chalitza with the opposite intent (I.e. to do yibum and marry her instead of get rid of her) then it still works as a chalitza?

Background:

  1. The Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin 2:12) holds that even though we poskin that if a knife falls and just happens to shecht an animal properly it is a kosher slaughtering  you don’t need specific intent to shect but if you specifically had in mind not to perform a kosher shechita, but rather just to stab it or strangle the animal that is not a shechita even if it was physically done properly.
  2.  The Oneg Yom Tov (57) asks on the Maharshal from a case in Yevamos daf 106 that Reish Lakish holds that the case of a mistaken chalitza being a kosher chalitza is when he says I will perform the process of chalitza in order marry her. Even though chalitza is the process to separate the brother from his yevama and avoid marrying or doing yibum to her.
  3. The Maharshal holds that by shechita, the shochet is the one who is permitting the animal to be eaten. But by chalitza G-d is the one permitting the woman to marry anyone it is just that chalitza is the process of acquisition done for her to acquire herself and be allowed to now marry anyone else.
  4. Normally by an acquisition the person doing the acquisition makes it his by himself but by chalitza G-D makes her free not the brother who is doing the action of kinyan (acquisition to release her from the bond of yibum).

Answer: By chalitza it makes no difference what the intent of the brother was when doing the chalitza the action was done which allows for the Torah to release her but by shechita, granted there is no acquisition done to make it kosher therefore no specific intent is needed as long as the act was done properly but because the shochet is the one in control to make it kosher then if he has specific intent for it not to be kosher then he ruined it.  (Mishmeres Chaim 1:81)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim perek 4 halacha 1 part 2 of footnote 1 and footnote 2

Two very important lessons we learn today:

        1. People talk, even if they are rabbis and there are far and in between people who are modest and private who you can trust to tell them something and they won’t spread it.

        2. It is illogical to say that if a person did something wrong in his youth even if very severe he still has that problem now, after so many years even if you did not see him repent. If he seems to be acting in a kosher way there is no reason to suspect him of his previous deeds.

Bottom line: People grow up (most of the time)! Therefore there is no excuse to speak lashon hara about them.

Posted on

Chayei Sarah – Saving the Best for Last

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 motto “Save the best for last” is a real concept in Judaism, with major ramifications as we see in a medrish on this week’s Torah portion of Chayei Sarah.  In the parsha, after Eliezer and the House of Besuel agreed that Rivka should marry Yitzchok, Eliezer, who was Avraham’s chief servant, gave gifts to Rivka and her family. As it says:  “And the servant took out silver articles and golden articles and garments, and he gave [them] to Rebecca, and he gave delicacies to her brother and to her mother” (Breishis 24:53).

The Medrish Rabba quotes Rav Huna to say that “silver articles” refers to instruments that women used to sew or wash themselves, like a washbasin. The Rabbanan say that “delicacies” refers to popcorn (popped kernels of any grain to be exact) and nuts. The Medrish asks: is popcorn really more desireable than everything else? Rather, it is coming to teach us that when a person is embarking on a journey and doesn’t have proper provisions, he is in in great pain and suffering. Similarly, it says that before the Jews  left Egypt “Each woman shall borrow from her neighbor and from the dweller in her house silver and gold objects and garments…” (Shemos 3:22). Were clothes really most desirable? Rather, it is coming to teach us that if one is going on a journey and doesn’t have any clothing, it causes pain and suffering. Similarly, it says in Ezra (1:6): “And all those around them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with possessions, with cattle, and with delicacies, besides all that was donated” (Breishis Rabba 60:11).

The Matnos Kehuna explains that when the medrish asked about popcorn and clothing, it was because it was mentioned last, and we save the best for last; hence, they must be favorite.  The Matnos Kehuna explains the answer of the Medrish that food, as well as clothing, are indeed the favorite because without them there would be pain and suffering. Therefore this is what he took to support himself on the journey. This pasuk in Ezra supports the notion that the delicacies are mentioned last because they are more beloved than anything else.

The Etz Yosef spells the matter out a bit more clearly. He explains that the Medrish first asks: “Is popcorn really more beloved than anything else?” And the Medrish “answers that for Eliezer it was because that was his sustenance on his journey.” The Etz Yosef went on to explain that there are objects that, taken in a vacuum, are seemingly not cherished, but because of circumstance (time, location, etc.) are beloved in that area. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

In any event we see clearly that the motto “saving the best for last” is indeed a real thing. However we have to understand to what extent this assumption is made. If you take the second example used in the medrish you find something quite astonishing! You would think that if the Jewish women would be able to borrow anything from their Egyptian counterparts, they would ask for jewelry, fine gold and silver utensils, anything precious to them, which they did. But the medrish is telling us they saved the best for last, which was clothing. The clothing was the best because it was the most useful for them on their journey. Wouldn’t you think that something so essential would be asked to be borrowed first, just in case the Egyptians would change their minds part way and not let them take anything else? Why take the chance of taking too much advantage of the enemy?

It must be that the concept of saving the best for last is so naturally engrained in one’s psyche that that is how a person would automatically act, even at such a perilous time such as this one. They were preparing for a journey which they didn’t even know when it would end, and asking their enemy for anything, which normally could very easily backfire.

For this reason as well, Eliezer gave out his nosh last as presents to the family, not because he wanted to give Rivka first then her mother and brother. If the silver washing basin or golden sewing needle would have been his favorite he would have given that last. But because the nosh, his energy for the journey until now, was what he cherished most, so he gave it last.

 And so too when the exiles in the time of Ezra were preparing for their return to Israel to rebuild the Beis HaMikdash, they packed their food provisions last because those were the most favorite, beloved, and cherished items for them at that very moment, upon their journey from Babylon back to Israel.
It would seem unless explicitly expressed or premeditated otherwise we can assume that it is natural habit that a person saves the best for last.
אחרון אחרון חביב!

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #76

.  Question: What the difference between a safek peter chamor (a kosher animal used to redeem a donkey but in doubt if can be used) and a safek bechor (a first born domesticated animal in doubt whether it is a first born)?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 321:2,3) says that you shouldn’t redeem a donkey neither with a calf, or a wild animal or with a slaughtered sheep or a sheep which has a debilitating blemish (Treifa), or with a species illegally mixed (kilayim) or a koy (rather it should be redeemed with a live sheep or goat and then given to the kohen). One can’t redeem with a sheep that looks like a different species but if he did it works. The Rema says that there is an opinion that if he did redeem with it, it is a doubt whether it works.

B. The Be’er Heitiv (2) explains the ramifications of it being a doubt that if the redeemed donkey dies before the redemption creature was given to the kohen the owner is not obligated to give anything to that kohen for the owner can say that maybe the redemption didn’t work and if after it was given to the kohen the redeemed donkey died then the kohen can keep the redemption animal since he is the assumed owner of the animal now. He is the(muchzak) since the owner himself gave it to the kohen.

C. The Shulchan Aruch and Rema in siman 315 says that if a kohen grabbed a safek firstborn sheep or even if the owner gave it to him by mistake he must return it to the owner (and we don’t consider him muchzak).

Answer:By the redemption of the donkey there is at least an obligation to give a proper redemption animal to the kohen but a mistake might have been made and the owner thought this would be a good redemption animal therefore the kohen has a right to keep it. But a sheep where there is a doubt whether it is a firstborn there is a doubt whether there is an obligation at all to begin with.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #75

1.  Question: Why is there a difference whether you found excrement on your clothes or on the bottom of your shoe in terms of saying Holy matters like praying or learning Torah?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 76:2) says that one can place his shoe over a hole which has excrement inside it and recite the Shema as long as there is no smell emanating from there. But if the shoe is touching the excrement it is forbidden to say Shema.

B.  The Mishna Berura (5) differentiates between whether you are wearing the shoe or not. If you are not wearing the shoe and it touches the excrement while covering it you can say Shema but if you are wearing the shoe it is worse because now it is your clothing. However the Shulchan Aruch In si’if 4 indicates that if excrement is hidden on another part of the garment it is permissible to say Shema. The Magen Avraham says this is explicitly mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch siman 78 and He also says the difference between a shoe and other articles of clothing is because a shoe is nullified to the body where as other pieces of clothing aren’t.  Why? 

Answer: The Shulchan Aruch Harav 76:2 answers that the shoe is used by the foot to crush the excrement and the foot is what holding the shoe in place on the excrement therefore it’s as if the foot is touching the excrement. But by other articles of clothing they are not being used to touch the excrement therefore they are considered a covering. This would mean that a glove used on a hand to cover the excrement would be the same as a shoe.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4, Halacha 1, footnote 1 part 1

Today we started the 4th chapter of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which discusses speaking lashon hara about deeds a person or his family did of prohibition between man and Hashem, for example breaking Shabbos or not eating kosher. This means one cannot speak out someone or about that person's family that they use to not keep kosher or the like even if they have totally changed there ways and everyone knows that, and even if it is behind his back because if he would be there it is very likely he would be embarrassed if it was brought up. 
It would seem though, that if he was there and he himself brought up the subject about his past, talking about old times and the mistakes he made or just recollecting about good times with his friend at the movies or parties for instance, then it would be permissible for others to continue the conversation and reminisce assuming it won’t damage his reputation or him physically or monetarily and that the person continuing the conversation doesn’t have intent to denigrate him. 
The Chofetz Chaim brought an illustration about how just the fact a person would be embarrassed is reason not to mention his past misdeeds even if it won’t harm him in any way, from a Gemara in Bava Metzia 59a where King David said that anyone who mentions his sin that he did with Batsheva (which was not as severe as it looked, he did complete repentance, and everyone accepted him as king at that time) would still be worse than the sin itself because if anyone would cut him no blood would be spilled, I.e. he is so embarrassed over what happened. All the more so if it will monetarily, or physically harm someone, for example he won’t be able to find a job because of what you said, or even just to scare him is not permissible.  
If done with malicious intent the Rabbeinu Yona says in Shaarei Teshuva 214 that these type of people the Shechina, Divine Presence, does not rest among them. 
The Chofetz Chaim also illustrates how by just not watching what you say one can create severe ramifications. There is a Gemara in Shabbos 33b which relates that Yehuda Ben Geirim  was privy to a conversation the judges in the Sanhedrin about Rome. Rebbe Yehuda was praising Rome for all the useful roads, bridges, bathhouses etc. that were made which could be used by the Jews to serve Hashem better. Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai said they did it all for there own pleasure and sinful ways. Yehuda Ben Geirim went back home and in innocent conversation discussed what he heard in the Sanhedrin that day. Somehow word got out to the Roman government of what Rebbe Shimon Ben Yochai said which had grave results. 
However the Chofetz Chaim did say that one can confide in a righteous person who is known to be modest and private that you can trust won’t say anything else to anyone and know he will not come to judgement about that person being talked about and he is not trying to insult the guy, then you can tell that rabbi about someone, for example who is not eating kosher, or keeping Shabbos appropriately, for maybe he will be able to help him fix his ways. Another application of one you can trust would be a psychologist or the like who is paid to listen to problems and to keep his mouth shut.
Posted on

Vayera – The Source for the Concept of Tefilla

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.
After Avimelech, the King of the Plishtim (Philistines), took Sarah away from Avraham, Hashem came to Avimelech in a dream and told him not to touch her and to return her to Avraham. He then promised that Avraham would pray on his behalf, for Hashem made a miracle and closed up every hole in his, his wife, and maidservants’ bodies. The Torah testifies that: “Avraham prayed to G-D and G-D healed Avimelech, his wife, and his maids, and they were relieved” (Breishis 20:17).
The Medrish Rabba (Seder Vayera 52:13) relates on this pasuk, “ויתפלל אברהם אל האלוקים” : Rebbe Chama bar Rebbe Chanina said that from the beginning of this sefer [book] until now it never used this type of terminology; once Avraham Avinu prayed he untied that knot. “For Hashem had completely restrained every orifice” (pasuk 18), the mouth was restrained, the throat was restrained, the ears were restrained, up top was restrained, and down below was restrained, and everyone said it was because of the matter of Sarah the wife of Avraham. (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)

There are many explanations of what this medrish means. The Maharz”u says that the terminology (or format) of tefilla was not used until this point, when Hashem told Avimelech that Avraham would pray for him, and then the Torah relates that Avraham indeed prayed on his behalf. What the medrish means when it says “he untied this knot” would seem (according to the Maharz”u) to be that the word tefila comes from the pasuk “Naftuli Elokim Niftalti” (Breishis 30:8), the reason why Rochel named Bilhah’s second son Naftali. Rashi there explains that the word “Naftuli” comes from the phrase “ikesh upisalto,” which means perverse and crooked. Onkelos there says it stems from the word “bausi bi’ischonanti,” which means request while beseeching. But they are both the truth, for Hashem originally made the world straight but through man’s sin the straightness has become crooked and perverseness has entered the world. So tefilla, praying, exists to straighten the crooked and remove the perverse.
According to the Maharz”u, tefilla, prayer, came to straighten out the perverseness and crookedness of the world that came about as a result of sin, which made crooked the straightness that Hashem originally created the world with. This fits perfectly into what Avraham did; for the straight sense of the word, Hashem created man with holes in his body to help him function and Hashem blocked up those holes in Avimelech’s body because of the sin he committed of abducting Sarah. So Avraham prayed on his behalf to straighten out the corruption and crookedness Avimelech had created for himself. The Rada”l says that there was never a time until now that someone had prayed and Hashem had answered them, resulting in reversing a Heavenly decree, until Avraham came around and reopened these openings. This is why we say in our Shemone Esray “Magen Avraham,” that Hashem is Avraham’s Protector, for because of him the Gates of Kindness were opened to listen to prayer.
According to the Rada”l this was the first time Hashem answered the prayers of someone and reversed a heavenly decree, therefore we recognize the fact that Avraham opened the Gates of Kindness so that Hashem answers our prayers by saying in our Shemone Esray at least 3 times daily, “Baruch Ata Hashem Magen Avraham.”
 However the Yidei Moshe has a different take on this. He says this is the first time someone ever prayed an incredibly intense prayer, ויתפלל comes from the word פלילים, wondrous, just as it says by Pinchas, ויפלל פנחס, Pinchas did wondrous feats. It says that they needed something really big to happen, and that was referring to the incredibly intense prayer needed to untie the knot for all their limbs were closed, the mouth, ears, etc. as the Medrish explains.
According to the Yidei Moshe, this was the first time in history that someone prayed a very intense prayer and Avraham did so because it was a very dire situation; all the orifices of the king of the Philistine’s body and of his wife and servants were closed up. It was seeing clear and present danger, directly in front of his face, which inspired him to pray such an intense prayer, as never prayed before in history!

But why hadn’t this happen before? Surely Avraham himself was in other circumstances where he had to pray on behalf of others, or even himself, like when he beseeched Hashem to save Sodom earlier on in the Torah portion. That was also a circumstance of clear and present danger; he knew that fire and brimstone would hail down from Heaven and wipe out whole cities. Both situations were dealing with bad people, and Avraham was using his feelings of mercy and grace to pray on their behalf. But, still, by Avimelech, king of the Philistines, he prayed with more intensity? Why is this so? Indeed the Yidei Moshe did not say because he was trying to get Sarah back after she was captured, rather it is because he saw the dire situation they were in. That made a difference! The fact that Avraham saw with his own eyes the suffering Avimelech was going through prompted him to pray a very intense prayer, even more so than knowing that moments later whole cities would be violently wiped out.

A little more inspiration, actually seeing a reality check in front of one’s eyes, can transform one’s prayers from intense to really intense and make a world of a difference to the point that it was something never done before until then.


Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #74

2.  Question: In order to have completed a complete repentance so that one can testify again why is it more strict by an eid zomem (false witness) or a butcher that slaughtered and sold treifos blemished animals than one who gambles or sold shmita (sabbatical year) goods or loans with interest?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 34:30-35) gives ways to repent from sins which invalidate one from being a witness while staying in one’s own place of living when it comes to gambling or selling shmita goods or loans with interest but by slaughtering blemished animals and eidim zomemim the Shulchan Aruch says that part of the process of fixing his bad ways and proving he is honest is leaving his place of living. 

 Answer: The Be’er Heitiv (43)says we are more strict and make him be in a situation where he is outside of his comfort zone and still does the honest thing at times when he is going to be going back to his old status like being a butcher or an honest witness but when just proving that one dropped his bad ways like gambling, and charging interest all he needs to do is prove it in his own city to be allowed to testify again because he doesn’t have to prove he can earn the previous status he lost he just has to prove he is honest again so we are more lenient in the latter cases to prove his honesty in his place of living.


Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #73

1.  Question: If a person is standing in water without any clothes and wants to make a blessing why is he allowed to put his arms around his waist to separate his heart from his bottom, isn’t he touching unclean normally covered places which also prevent him from making a blessing?

Background:

A. There are a number of conditions that have to be met in order to speak or do Holy matters like making blessings: 1. Private parts must be covered. 2. There must be a separation between private parts and one’s heart. 3. One must have clean hands that have not touched normally covered places on one’s body which tend to sweat.

 B. The Mishna Berura (74:3:14) gives a solution for one standing in water, for example a woman going to the Mikva who must make a blessing, that is that the water is considered covering her private parts and by clenching her arms around her waist which is not normal to do, that can be used as a separation between her heart and bottom, just like a girdle.

C. Question is why is this allowed if you are not allowed to touch covered areas and the waist is normally covered?

Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (footnote 16 in Dirshu) says that the body can’t be dirty with sweat if you are inside the water so there is no problem of dirty hands if you touch your waste when making the blessing.