Author: Rabbi Milder

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.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 3 footnote 10

We concluded the unit on judging your fellow Jew favorably. The Chofetz Chaim said that even though it is very proper and good character to judge one favorably in cases when it would seem more unfavorable, however technically according to halacha one does not have to judge favorably in this circumstance. But if one does judge others favorably even in these circumstances, at least treating it as a doubt them Hashem will reciprocate and judge you favorably.

Two cases in the Gemara where they did not judge favorably but the reason being is because halachically you don’t need to and these were extenuating circumstances which was not worth going beyond the letter of the law:

1. Bava Metzia 75b: There is a halacha that one should not lend money without witnesses lest the would be borrower would deny he borrowed money and people will curse the lender for giving a bad name to the would be borrower for no reason. This was a real issue to the point that Ravina would not lend money to Rav Ashi without witnesses, lest he forgot he borrowed money, even though they were partners together in writing down the Gemara and they were the leading rabbis of their generation. Why didn’t people judge the lender favorably and not curse him if he claimed the borrower owes him money, maybe he is correct? It must be that halachically one can judge others unfavorably in situations like this where there should have been witnesses at the time of the loan.

2. Sanhedrin 26a: Rebbe Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbe Shimon ben Yehotzadak were on there way to the Sanhedrin to testify that there should be a leap year that year. That year happened to be a shmita (sabbatical) year and they saw people in the field plowing and assumed they were hired to plow in a non-Jewish owned field. They then saw people tending to a vineyard and assumed they were fixing fences not working on the actual crop. Reish Lakish saw these two rabbis did not reprimand either of these people and thought they should not be allowed to testify because they don’t care about the laws of shmita so they did not reprimand those people in the fields. He even told Rebbe Yochanan not to accept them as witnesses. Why didn’t Reish Lakish judge them favorably, especially since they were such great sages, Amoraim! It must be that he had no obligation to, and because these farmers looked like they were doing something wrong, and transgressing shmita is so severe than Reish Lakish felt he should not go beyond the letter of the law but rather according to strict judgment and assume there was a problem.

3. On the other hand we see the opposite illustration in Shabbos 127b where a worker judged his employer favorably when the worker asked for his salary right before Yom Kippur and the employer said he had no money, land, possessions or even food that he can send back home with him. The employer then came to him after Sukkos, paid him plus gave him a bonus and asked his employee what he was thinking. When the employee gave excuses, judging his employer favorably with some far fetched excuses, the employer said all that is pretty much true and just as you judged me favorably so should Hashem judge you favorably.

Posted on

Lech Licha – Blind Faith: A History of the Arab World

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.

Towards the end of this week’s Torah Portion of Lech Licha Hashem gives a blessing to Yishmael because Avraham, his father, prayed to Hashem that he should receive a blessing; not because he was part of the covenant with Yitzchok, as the Rabbeinu Bachye (17:20) points out based on the pesukim in the Torah: “And regarding Ishmael, I have heard you; behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Yitzchok, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year.” (Breishis 17:20, 21).

The Rabbeinu Bachye goes on to explain in more detail the blessing given to Yishmael, and how it came into fruition. “Yishmael had 12 sons who were enumerated by name at the end of the Torah portion of Chaye Sarah. It was written there: ‘The first born of Yshmael was Nevayot, [then came] Kedar, Adabel, Mivasem, Mashma, Domeh, Masa, Chadad, Teimah, Yitur, Nafish, and Kedmah, which equal out to 12.’ The fact that it says he begot 12 princes and not 12 nations is to show us their leadership and the profound greatness which was placed upon them because of the blessing, more so than on other nations, just as Hashem the Blessed One promised:  ‘Behold I will bless him and cause him to multiply very, very much.’ There is another implication to the word ‘princes,’ ‘נשיאים’ in that they disappear from the world after their profound greatness. For it comes from the pasuk, ‘נְשִׂיאִ֣ים וְ֖רוּחַ, Clouds and wind’(Mishlei 25:14), and it is coming to hint that they will be destroyed and lost from the world, like the language of ‘Just as a cloud is consumed and goes away’ (Iyov 7:9). This is also why the word for princes in this pasuk is spelled ‘נְשִׂיאִם֙’ without a yud towards the end of the word. The pasuk is coming to teach you about the kingdom of Yishmael that in the beginning they will be strong and in the end they will be weak. So to the angel said to Hagar ‘And he will be a pere adam’ (Breishis 16:12), meaning he will act amongst people like a barbarian who defeats everyone, and afterwards the hand of everyone will be upon him.”

Yishmael and his descendants were blessed by Hashem, due to Avraham’s merit and prayers, to be great and mighty rulers of enormous multitudes, for a long period of time; but only temporarily. Yet their time seemed not to have come too quickly, as Rabbeinu Bachye writes in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel: “We have seen that this promise was delayed for them by 2,333 years and this delay was not because of their sins, and they were yearning for its fulfillment all these years, and in the end it was fulfilled, and afterwards their empire was strengthened. As for us, whose kingdom was taken away because of our sins, and a time of 1,335 years was set, all the more so we should be yearning for His promise and never give up!”  (Click here for Hebrew text.)

We must put into perspective what Rabbeinu Chananel means, and the lesson he is trying to drive home. It so happens that his calculations are exact, for Avraham and Yishmael had a bris in the year 2047 (on the Jewish calendar) and Yishmael’s reign started in 4374 (622 C.E.) which is the year Mohamad fled Mecca, which started the Arab conquest, ten years before they spread throughout the world (4374-2047=2,337 years which is just 4 years off of Rabbeinu Chananel’s calculation of 2,333).

The 1,335 referenced for the Jewish people is referring to the second to last pasuk of Daniel, where it is discussing the Final Redemption and coming of Moshiach. It writes there: “Fortunate is he who waits and reaches days of one thousand, three hundred, and thirty-five” (Daniel 12:12). What this number means is completely obscured; it definitely does not mean, according to Rabbeinu Chananel, that Moshiach was supposed to come 1,335 years after the time of Daniel, for Daniel lived between 3304-3399 / 457-362 BCE which means, at latest, from Daniel’s death, 362 BCE. 1,335 years later would put it at the year 973 CE, and Rabbeinu Chananel lived from 965 CE until 1055 CE, which would have made him 8 years old at the time. It is evident that he wrote this many years later, and yet still said with confidence that ‘all the more so we Jews should have full trust in Hashem for our reckoning since there is some timetable even though that timetable is totally incomprehensible, and was purposefully written in that fashion.’ In fact, the Metzudas Dovid, many centuries later, said on that pasuk in Daniel: “It says happy is the one who waits for it and will then reach that moment and it then explains what we are hoping for which reaches a certain number but we don’t know what this is referring to (anything of its kind).”

Rabbeinu Chananel is trying to teach us a lesson from Yishmael’s descendants. Just as they knew without a doubt, and had blind faith that Hashem’s blessing and promise to them would one day come to fruition, as it did, all the more so we have to have unyielding trust in Hashem that He will bring the ultimate salvation to his Chosen People. Why should it be so obvious for us? Rabbeinu Chananel says our kingdom was only taken away from us because of our sins so it is up to us to repent and rectify the matter but it is also because we were given a number to look forward to, a sign, and though it is obscure and unknown, it is something to “hang our hats on,” as an impetus to strengthen our trust that His word will come true.

The History of the world is quite vast! It took 1,656 years before Hashem decided to send the flood. Yishmael and his descendants, the Arab world, were steadfast for 2,333 years in their blind faith and trust in Hashem, without any indications of when His promise to them would be fulfilled, and look where they are today!

We not only have that clarity of belief in Hashem, just as they do, but Hashem, out of his love and mercy for us, gave us some hint, albeit a very subtle one, in order to strengthen our yearning, drive for the End of Days and our Salvation.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #72

  1. Question: Why does the Be’er Heitiv say it is permissible to throw fruit at the children during hakafos, dancing on Simchas Torah?

Background:

A. The Bachye writes we should protest throwing fruit at the children. It could be for reasons that it was a frivolous and wasteful custom.

B. There is a medrish that says Haman told Achashverosh that the Jews had this custom.

Answer: It must be an ancient custom if it goes all the way back to the times of the Purim story therefore it is valid. Now a days people throw candy.

Posted on

Torah Riddle Test #71

  1. Question: In terms of invalidating oneself for testimony as a witness what is the difference between saying “I made a mistake” verses saying “I did it by accident” or “I forgot”?

Background:

  1. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 34:12) says: “If witnesses testify on a man who is assumed to be kosher (and honest) that he leant money with interest, he is not invalidated to be a witness because we assume it was leant in a fashion which would not be prohibitive or he can claim he was mistaken and thought there was no prohibition in charging interest in this manner.”
  2. The Rema earlier (34:5) says “If witnesses come and say he broke his oath, he cannot say it was an accident or I was forced to break it in order to make himself kosher to testify.”
  3. The prohibition of transgressing an oath is known to everyone.
  4. The Be’er Heitiv (14) says he wouldn’t invalidate himself to testify even if he broke Shabbos, for example if a person claimed “I did not know it is an av melacha to tie and untie a permanent knot on Shabbos.” Or he says he forgot it is even Shabbos, even though he was warned from Heaven (when we all received the Torah) about this prohibition.

Answer: Since the sin is well known then he should be more careful once he makes an oath and is not believed to say he forgot about the oath or he mistakenly made it, therefore he is invalid to be a witness about what he saw in order to testify. Whereas if one says he thought it wasn’t forbidden why would he think to be more careful, it came out of the blue, it wasn’t an issue on his radar screen so there is no reason to assume he is a dishonest and therefore invalid witness (see Be’er Heitiv 14 there).

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 3 Halacha 7, 8

This week we discussed a very important concept about what triggers a person to speak lashon hara most times. That is not judging your fellow Jew favorably. There is a mitzvah to judge everyone favorably based on the verse, ״בצדק תשפוט עמיתך״ “you shall judge your nation with righteousness” (Vayikra 19:15).

The Chofetz Chaim discussed two levels of people: (1) one who is known to be a G-d fearing Jew, even if you heard or saw something which more likely looks inappropriate or against Halacha you still have a mitzvah to judge him favorably. (Parenthetically rebuking someone where there was an obvious wrong doing is clarifying with that person, not considered judging unfavorably.) In fact the main issue of why Miriam was punished with tzaraas for speaking ill against Moshe to Aharon, even though she was trying just to get to the heart of the truth and certainly not trying to denigrate Moshe in any way, she was only concerned with the fact that because Moshe divorced his wife there won’t be any chance of anymore little Moshe Rabbeinus populating the world, as the Sifri in B’haaloscha says, still in all, with all her positive intent, for her level she was punished because she should have judged Moshe favorably that separating from his wife was the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances of his level of closeness and interaction with Hashem as the leader of the Jews.

(2) People who are in the middle, meaning they are normally Torah observant but they some times slip up. These type of people, if you see them do something or say something which there is a 50/50 chance could be good or bad it is a mitzvah to judge them favorably. Certainly if it is most likely that he didn’t do or say anything wrong you must just him favorably. But even if it most likely looks like something wrong was said or done it is very much the correct thing to do to try to at least leave it in doubt and not speedily conclude he did something wrong. Even if it is pretty evident in your eyes that he is guilty of any wrongdoing that does not give a person the right to tell others about it. This is where the transgression of lashon hara comes in. Exceptions to the rule of keeping quiet are discussed in chapters 4,5, and 10 with all there parameters.

Bottom line one shouldn’t be quick to judgement when you hear or see something which seems to be a problem whether a sin between man and G-d and even a sin between man and his fellow man lest it will lead to lashon hara (unless all the parameters are met and you are supposed to talk.)

Posted on

Noach – The Animals Owe Us

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 Noach there is a hint to the Seven Noahide Laws, which are: (1)idolatry, (2) cursing the Divine Name, (3) murder, (4) illicit relation, (5) theft and civil law (6) court systems (7) eating a limb torn from a live animal.

It would seem that when Hashem created the world He only allowed man to eat vegetation until after the flood, when he permitted Noach to eat meat; but not from a live animal. Why is this so?

The Torah says: “Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything” (Breishis 9:3). Rashi explain, “לכם יהיה לאכלה SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU — For I did not permit Adam Harishon to eat meat, but green herbs alone; but to you — just as the green herbs that I gave the full use of to Adam Harishon — do I give everything (Sanhedrin 59b).”

The Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi explains why Adam Harishon was not permitted to eat meat and what changed in the times of Noach. He says: “The reason why meat was permitted to Noach and not to Adam, I humbly believe is because man and animal were equally the creations of Hashem, one was no better than the other, so why should one be allowed to kill the other? But at the time of the flood, when they all sinned, and all of them deserved to be destroyed, but they survived in the merit of Noach, for this reason man is now better than the animals.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

How is it possible to logically entertain the possibility that man and animal are equal? Animals are completely made up of physical, world-driven instincts. Man was created “in the image of G-D,” with a spiritual soul interconnected to his and her physical body, with the ability to speak on an intellectual level, make deep cognitive decisions, and think on a very profound and creative level. Man also has free choice to choose between good and bad, with the ability to reach great heights in connecting with Hashem. Whereas animals, any corruption that happened to them in the days of the flood or at any other time, is due to instinctive reactivity to their surroundings. So why does the Sifsei Chachamim say they were once equal?

It must have been talking  in terms of damaging or killing another life force; animals and men were equal because we are both creations of Hashem, and how can it be justified to ruin or destroy such a precious and valuable entity. Hashem only allowed vegetation to be taken apart and eaten for the purpose of man and animals’ sustenance, which is why they were created in this world; without food we cannot live. What then changed? Aren’t animals still the same creatures created by Hashem just as man is?

We see from here the power of indebtedness. Since it was only in Noach’s merit that the animal kingdom was saved, it is as if he and his progeny own the animals and it is within our right to make productive use of them. (Albeit within reason, which is why there are limitation, like the prohibition of eating a limb torn from a live animal).

For this reason we are allowed to eat meat and, even more so, there is now a natural fear that animals have of mankind, as we see in Rashi from the previous pasuk: “So long as a baby, even one day old, has life you do not have to guard it against the attacks of mice, whilst Og, king of Bashan, when dead needs to be guarded against the attacks of mice, as it is said, ‘And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be [upon the beasts of the field etc.].’ When will the fear of you be upon the beasts? So long as you are alive (חתכם) (Shabbat 151b)” (Rashi 9:2).

The sense and reality of gratitude can be absolutely transformative!

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #70

  1. Question: If you are in doubt whether you said Shema or blew shofar or shook lulav on the first day of the respective Yom Tov, you should perform those mitzvos with their blessing according to some opinions, (See Mishna Berura 67:1:1), which means by Shema the blessings before and after should be said. Why then if a person was only able to hear shofar or shake lulav at bein hashmashos, twilight, or whether a tumtum wears tzitzis or an androgynous gets a bris, in those cases no blessing is made because when in doubt be lenient and don’t say a blessing in doubt?

Background: A. A tumtum is a person who does not have seeable genitalia because it is covered up by extra flesh so there is a doubt of whether the person is male or female. Women aren’t obligated in tzitzis. B. An androgynous is a person with both genitalia which there is also a doubt what gender it is or maybe even a third type of person. Women certainly don’t get a bris. C. Bein hashmashos, or twilight is a time when there is a question whether it is halachically day or night. One cannot fulfill the mitzvos of shofar or lulav at night.

Answer: In cases where we would say a blessing are scenarios where the person is obligated in the mitzvah but is just in doubt whether he did it or not therefore since there is a definite obligation he just isn’t sure whether he fulfilled it or not there is an original assumption that he did not do it yet and still is obligated. A mitzvah fulfilled in doubt does not remove a definite obligation one has. Whereas when a blessing should not be said are in cases where there is a doubt if there is even an obligation at all. (However there is an opinion that by any doubt one should not say a blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah, (See Mishna Berura here in its totality and Dirshu footnote 1.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #69

  1. Question:  Why is saying Shema with the congregation derech eretz, a cordial thing to do even if you are not praying with them but there is an obligation to say Kedusha with the congregation even if you are not praying with them?

 Background: A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 65:2 and Mishna Berura 9) says that if you already read the Shema and you enter the shul and find them reading the Shema you must read the first verse so that you don’t look like as if you don’t want to accept the yoke of Heaven with your friends. This applies to other things that the congregation says together, for example “Ashrei” or “Aleinu,” you should read with them because it is derech eretz, proper manners. B. The Rema (125:2) says there is an obligation to say kedusha with the congregation and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 3:89) says that this is a halachic obligation, not just proper manners. C. There is a set obligation to say the Shema twice a day, once in the morning and once at night. D. The concept of saying Kedusha is to sanctify the name of Hashem within a congregation.

Answer: Since the obligation is to say Shema twice at some point in the day and at night then to say it when everyone else is saying it and you already said it is only proper manners, derech eretz, to not look like you don’t want to accept the yoke of Heaven. But to sanctify Hashem’s name with the congregation potentially really could be even a hundred times a day, there is no limit, therefore every opportunity is a real obligation.