Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Shemos – Daughter of G-D: Respecting Status


An astonishing thing is often overlooked in this week’s Torah portion of Shemos, when Pharaoh’s daughter did something akin to Avraham Avinu.  While totally steeped in the idolatry and black magic for which the Egyptian culture was known, she, completely independently, found G-D and denounced idolatry. This is why “she just happened” to be by the Nile River, in the right place at the right time, as Baby Moses was floating down the river in a basket. Indeed, this is why she is known as Basya, Daughter of G-D. The Torah relates: “Pharaohs daughter went down to bathe by the River and her maidens walked along the River. She saw the basket among the reeds and she sent her maidservant and she took it” (Shemos 2:5).
The Gemara in Sotah 12b elaborates about what exactly took place at the time: “The verse states: ‘And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe [lirḥotz] in the river’ (Exodus 2:5). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This teaches that she came down to the river to cleanse herself from the impurity of her father’s idols, as she was immersing herself as part of the conversion process. And similarly it states: ‘When the Lord shall have washed [raḥatz] away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of destruction’ (Isaiah 4:4). This washing clearly refers to the purging of spiritual sins, rather than bathing for the sake of cleanliness. The verse continues: ‘And her maidens walked along [holekhot] by the riverside’ (Exodus 2:5). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This walking is nothing other than the terminology of going toward death, and similarly it states: ‘Behold, I am going [holekh] to die’ (Genesis 25:32). The verse continues: “And she saw the ark among the willows” (Exodus 2:5). Once her maidens saw that the daughter of Pharaoh was intending to save Moses, they said to her: Our mistress, the custom of the world is that when a king of flesh and blood decrees a decree, even if all the world does not fulfill it, at least his children and members of his household fulfill it, and yet you are violating the decree of your father. After the maidens tried to convince her not to save Moses, the angel Gabriel came and beat them to the ground and they died. The verse concludes: “And she sent amatah to take it” (Exodus 2:5). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree as to the definition of the word “amatah.” One says that it means her arm, and one says that it means her maidservant. The Gemara explains: The one who says that it means her arm explained it in this manner, as it is written “amatah,” which denotes her forearm. And the one who says that it means her maidservant explained it in this manner because it does not explicitly write the more common term: Her hand [yadah]. Therefore, he understands that this is the alternative term for a maidservant, ama. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that it means her maidservant, didn’t you say earlier: Gabriel came and beat them to the ground and the maidservants died, so how could Pharaoh’s daughter send her? The Gemara answers: It must be that Gabriel left her one maidservant, as it is not proper that a princess should stand alone.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The life of Moshe Rabbeinu, which means the future of the Jewish People and in fact the whole world, hung in the balance. Would he be saved or not? Pharaoh’s daughter saw the child floating down the river and wanted to save him. Her companions tried to stop her, but the angel Gavriel struck them dead. The Tanna who said that she stuck out her hand and brought in the basket obviously was learning that there was an open miracle performed, by her arm stretching many amos, or cubits, long in order to save Moshe. However, according to the other opinion, Moshe being saved was relatively within the boundaries of nature beside the angel Gabriel’s intervention. That being the case, why then was one maidservant left alive simply because it is improper for a princess to be left alone?  Wasn’t there a chance that the last maidservant might dissuade her from saving the baby? Granted, at this moment, she was making a statement, separating herself from her father’s idolatrous way of life, essentially at risk of leaving the palace all together; but it still must have been a very highly sensitive emotional time, especially with her entire entourage mysteriously dropping dead on the banks besides her. Why take the risk and leave one alive? Because that’s proper manners? If she can potentially be the one to convince her to turn back then any hope of saving Klal Yisrael might be all over!

Imagine if The G-D of Legions, King of All Kings, The Holy One Blessed Be He, lihavdil, was in His war room with the angel Gabriel and they were strategizing a mission of how to best save Moshe Rabbeinu from drowning in the Nile and saving the entire Jewish People. This would have ramifications for the entire world’s existence, for if the Jewish People  would not have been redeemed from Egypt to get to  Har Sinai in order to accept Hashem’s Torah, then Hashem would have destroyed the world. So there was a lot on the line. Hashem decided to conduct things within the natural realm of the world and he warned Gabriel that he could take out all of Basya’s friends besides one, because it would be a lack of proper respect for a princess to be left alone. So now that she had her one maidservant, the maidservant could go and fetch the basket, using normal means of saving Klal Yisrael, and no massive miracle had to take place. But why risk the chance of saving one maidservant just because it is improper to leave her alone? The world was hanging in the balance; why is derech eretz, proper manners, taken into account at such a delicate time as this? Gabriel should not have taken any risks, wiped them all out, and ,if need be, since there was no other means of saving Moshe, then there is no choice but to rely on a miracle! But now that he had to take proper manners into account and must save one of them, it then put everything back into the rule and order of nature, and there is a slight risk that the whole mission might fall apart. Was it really worth even taking a slight risk like that during such an important mission?

The answer is YES! We see to what extent one has to treat another person with the proper respect he or she deserves, no matter what the dire situation anyone is in. Derech Eretz Kodmah LiTorah, proper manners supersedes the Torah! In this case it means that respecting others status comes before rational logic of getting things done properly without taking any risks even at such an ominous time in history!

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4, halacha 5, note 25-28 and halacha 6

Note 25: Though the Chofetz Chaim said that when the court reprimands a person that committed a severe sin once they should do it in private and in a fashion that won’t embarrass the guy however he elaborated here that if the guy won’t easily listen or if the sin was public and everyone knows about it and might do the same then the Jewish court has a right to take things into their own hands and use him as an example to dissuade others from committing the same thing or give him lashes to be sure he will stop doing the sin himself.

Note 26: Though the court can’t accept one witness’s testimony for it is considered lashon hara if not said with another witness and they don’t have to rebuke the would be sinner, however if they somehow verified that the he did actually sin then they certainly should rebuke him.

Note 27, 28: In the end of the halacha we said that the person who saw someone do a severe sin can tell the sinner’s rabbi or rebbe as long as he believes him like two witnesses and the rabbi is a secretive and modest person who wouldn’t tell anyone else about it. Then the Rabbi can “hate” the sinner for what he did even if you don’t think he will do it again, until he has proven that he has repented then we assume that this type of rabbi when finding out that his student or congregant has repented or he helps him repent will love the repented sinner again and treat like everyone else as he was before the sin. He certainly won’t tell anyone else, which no one should believe him anyways even if he is a trusted rabbi since I’m this is all second hand coming from him and he only trust the guy who saw the sin first hand “like” two witnesses just to be extra cautious and to try to help the sinner mend his ways.

In halacha 6 the Chofetz Chaim says that even if the rabbi is a big talker but if you know if you don’t say anything to him and he is the only person the sinner will listen to them you are allowed to tell the rabbi in order so that the sinner will stop doing the sin if you have indications that he is ready and willing to do the sin again. This is permissible because you are doing this for the sake of Heaven to stop sin in the world. You certainly can’t tell anyone else because you have not actually seen him sin again even if you saw the sin with someone else, to be two witnesses and you know he would do it again, but as long as you have not seen him do it again or really for multiple times he is still included in the verse of “your nation” which one cannot speak lashon hara to anyone about.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #90

2.       Question: Why is one allowed to enter a bathroom or bathhouse without a halachic question fully answered but cannot start Shemone esray if he did not finalize an answer to the halachic question he was thinking about?

Background:

 A. In both cases one cannot think about the question, in the bathroom or bathhouse because it is forbidden to think Torah in dirty places and by shemone esray because it will ruin his concentration.

 Answer: The Shach says in Yoreh Deah 246:28 that the more one tries not to concentrate or to remove the question from him mind while davening then the more distracted he will be from davening. Meaning trying to distract oneself from the question so that you can Daven with more concentration will cause you to have less concentration on your davening and more concentration on distracting yourself so it is counterproductive. But when walking into a dirty place you just have to distract yourself and everything is fine. See Dirshu Mishna Berura 85:2:8:4.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #89

1.       Question: What is the difference between a bathroom and a chicken pen or barn?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura 84:3 says if you make a difference in the body of the bathroom to make it not a bathroom then it is permissible to place a mezuzah on the door and to make blessings inside it, as well as to learn and Daven inside it. But without a change in the body of the room, then its name is not uprooted, meaning it is still a bathroom even if not in use any more and cleaned out.

B. But a barn, the Be’ur Halacha (79:7 “Aval”) says, only needs a cleaning of all waste to be able to learn or pray inside it. The Levushei Mordechai says this is also true for a chicken pen.

C. The Torah requires “your camp to be holy” to do Holy matters like making blessings, learning and praying. The question is what’s the difference?

  Answer: Since the chicken pen or barn is not set aside specifically for excrement rather it is to guard the chickens and animals, it is just that they also take care of their needs in that place then all you need is to clean it out but as long as the room is considered a bathroom even if it’s not in use it is still not “holy” and a disgrace to do Holy matters in that area. See Dirshu Mishna Berura 83:1 footnote 4.   [/exapnd]

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4 Halacha 5 part 1 with note 23, 24

If you know the person you saw do an outlandish sin that everyone knows is wrong would not listen to your rebuke because he is foolish and a scoffer, and it’s very possible he will do the sin again then it is permissible to tell the court if you can bring another witness that saw it to testify with him so that the court will privately take the proper initiative to stop him from sinning again. If you are only one witness you can’t tell the court because the Torah says courts only accept to witnesses, one witness constitutes lashon hara since the court can’t believe you. However an individual can go to the sinner’s relatives and tell him what he did assuming they will believe as if he is two witnesses and do something about it. All this is possible because sin disrupts the wellbeing nature of the world and must be minimized as much as possible however one can only tell if he is doing purely for the sake of Heaven, to be zealous for the sake of sanctifying Hashem’s Holy Name in the world but if he has ulterior motives like he has some grudge against the sinner then it will be held against him. Even though he should divulge the information anyway in order to stop the guy from sinning more but Hashem will hold the speaker accountable for his ulterior motives. However one has to be extremely careful before telling a relative, to be sure he will accept what you are saying and try to help because there are many times when relatives don’t believe negative reports about their relatives which can lead to major arguments and fighting that is not worth it for the sake of peace. We see from here that keeping the peace is more important for the world than trying to stop others from sin. One other option is to tell the sinner’s Rav or Rebbe again assuming they will believe you like two witnesses and will keep it private. They are allowed to hate the guy and gently reprimand until he changes his ways.

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.