Author: Rabbi Milder

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.)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4 first part of Halacha 4

 If a person who is not so righteous but not so bad, in the middle, most of the time doing the right thing and you know he did something really bad that everyone knows is a sin, for example he ate non-kosher food like pig or shellfish. Or even if he did a sin not so famous but you warned him not to do it and he did it anyway. You are forbidden to tell anyone what he did because it’s possible he did teshuva and truly regretted what he did. Only if he is constantly transgressing the sin the circumstance might be different and we’ll learn more about that in halacha 7. If you do reveal it to someone else it’s considered a various grievous sin of lashon hara if said behind his back and if said to his face in front of a crowd the person has embarrassed him and therefore might not have any share in the World To Come assuming the sinner did repent. The Chofetz Chaim elaborates in the Be’er Mayim Chaim note 14 that though there is a status in the Torah of someone you are allowed to hate if you saw he did a sin that does not mean you can speak lashon hara because he is still considered part of “your nation” so though he is not considered “your brother” which allows you to hate him as long as you don’t know for sure that he did teshuva since the Chofetz Chaim says that the main part of repentance is regret in one’s heart which only G-d really knows about. But you still have to rebuke anyone part of your nation nicely in private therefore you cannot embarrass and denigrate him in public. If a person does hear lashon hara of this sort he can be cautious but may not accept it as fact, even if two people would tell him unless convicted in official Jewish court.
Posted on

Vayeishev – Four Cup of Wine at the Seder: Appreciating the Process of Salvation

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.

ישועת ד’ כהרף עין is a saying posted on the wall of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim’s main office in Queens, NY. It means “Salvation of Hashem is like the blink of an eye.” This does not mean we can expect or, G-D forbid, demand that Hashem rescue us from our calamities instantaneously, like in the blink of the eye; rather, it can happen and we must believe it is possible. When it does happen there is much to be thankful for at its realization. However, as we will see from a medrish in this week’s Torah portion of Vayeishev, there is more of an appreciation of Hashem’s salvation when it happens through an extended process.

The Torah portion relates that the chief butler of Pharaoh was thrown in jail over a fly found in Pharaoh’s goblet. The chief butler had a dream in jail which Yosef explained to him. The Torah describes the dream, saying: “So the chief cupbearer related his dream to Joseph, and he said to him, ‘In my dream, behold, a vine is before me. And on the vine are three tendrils and it seemed to be blossoming, and its buds came out; [then] its clusters ripened into grapes. And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I placed the cup on Pharaoh’s palm.’ And Joseph said to him, “This is its meaning: the three tendrils are three days. In another three days, Pharaoh will number you [with the other officers], and he will restore you to your position, and you will place Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, according to [your] previous custom, when you were his cupbearer” (Breishis 40:9-13).

However the Medrish Rabba (Vayeishev 88:5) relates that there was actually a deeper meaning behind the dream. “’So the chief cupbearer related his dream to Joseph, and he said to him, ‘In my dream, behold, a vine is before me.’ This refers to the Jewish people as it says, ‘You uprooted a vine from Egypt’ (Tehillim 80:9). The vine had 3 tendrils [representing] Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam. ‘And it seemed to be blossoming’ [refers to] the blossoming of the Jewish redemption. ‘And its buds came out’ [refers] to the budding of the Jewish redemption. ‘Its clusters ripened into grapes’ represents that a vine which blossoms immediately buds and grapes that are budding immediately ripen. ‘And the cup of Pharaoh was in my hand.’ From where did the Rabbis enact four cups on the night of the seder? Rav Huna said in the name of Binayah in accordance with the four types of redemptions that were mentioned by Egypt, ‘And I took you out,’ ‘And I saved you,’ ‘And I redeemed you,’ and I took you.’ Rebbe Shmuel bar Nachman said, in accordance to the four cups mentioned here… Rebbe Levi said in accordance with the four kingdoms. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi said in accordance with the four cups of poison that Hashem will serve the non-Jews… And in accordance with those Hashem will give the Jews four cups of salvation in the future to come as it says, ‘The Lord is my allotted portion and my cup’ (Tehillim 16:5), I shall lift up a cup of salvations, and I shall call out in the name of the Lord, (Tehillim 116:13)…”

The Yefe Toar, bothered by the fact that it seems clear from the pesukim that Yosef interpreted the dreams differently, points out “the truth is that it was known that Hashem did not want to show [the butler and baker] what would become of them after 3 days. Only because what transpired as a result was [Yosef] was released from prison which eventually led to the redemption of the Jewish people, therefore Hashem orchestrated all these causes, and therefore it makes sense to attribute everything to the Jews who were the ultimate purpose of these dreams… ‘The vine that budded immediately ripened,’ this is coming to hint to 3 types of redemptions: buds, clusters, and grapes. The buds hinted to the beginning of the redemption when Moshe revealed himself to them as the progenitor of their redemption. The clusters refer to going out of Egypt, for then they started to see the fruits of redemption. The Grapes refers to the splitting of the sea, which completed their redemption. ‘From where did the Rabbi enact four cups?’ The Medrish answered that we learn from here that on Pesach we drink the cups because of freedom as it says, ‘I shall lift up a cup of salvations’… this is why we relied on this Torah portion for the amount of cups, for it hints to the redemption and Yosef went free because of this.” (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem could have redeemed us in the blink of an eye, as soon as Moshe came back to Egypt, but there was a whole process to our freedom. Why was the redemption drawn out at the cost of the extra pain and suffering, until they were completely free?
Rav Yisrael Salanter in his 7th letter of Ohr Yisrael begins: “Everything in the world is brought into existence through the process of cause and effect. The harvest of produce is the result of many preceding causes, such as planting seeds and plowing. The acquisition of money results from causes such as commercial transaction and leasing. Each cause is the effect of a preceding one. For example, seeding a field is the initial cause of grain sprouting. The seeding itself is the result of the person who plants the seeds, and the planting of the seeds is the result of his desire either to utilize the grain or to earn money through his labor. In the final analysis, there is no effect without a preceding cause that generates it. Likewise, there is no cause that is not generated by a preceding one. Ultimately, this chain of cause and effect traces back to the first, essential Cause – The Almighty.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We see from this Medrish that the Sages, when enacting the four cups of wine in appreciation of Hashem saving us from the clutches of Pharaoh and Egyptian bondage, recognized the cause and effect that ultimately led back to Hashem. Indeed, going all the way back to when Yosef interpreted the dreams for the butler and baker and how everything ultimately connected, piece by piece, until the final redemption at the sea.

This very enactment proves that one will appreciate seeing a process of salvation at work and in this way will have more of an appreciation of the way Hashem runs this world then if he would be saved in the blink of an eye, though more flashy, and possibly less strenuous, but lacking in the clear appreciation that one could potentially have by looking back and seeing a whole process unfolding.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #82

Question: Why was it considered accepting Shabbos by mistake in a case of a congregation that didn’t get a shofar until a few minutes before sunset and they had davened maariv early and they can blow the minimal amount of shofar blasts but once one lit Shabbos candles before lighting Chanukah candles by accident it is not considered a mistake and he cannot light candles anymore by himself?

Background:

A. The scenario of the shofar could be if Rosh HaShana was Thursday/Friday and the shul did not have a shofar. They sent someone to retrieve a shofar from a few towns over and he got delayed and was not showing up. Late Friday afternoon they essentially gave up and davened Kabbalah Shabbos and maariv early sometime between plag hamincha and sunset. Then the guy came with the shofar. The Mishna Berura (600:7) says that if there is no expert shofar blower who has not taken on Shabbos to blow then one who already accepted Shabbos can blow the minimal amount without a blessing. The Taz there says this is because they accepted Shabbos by mistake.

 B. Accepting Shabbos early is essentially making a vow.

Answer: The answer is found in the Responsa Beis Shearim 3:93 in the name of his Rebbe, Rav Pearls who said that the difference is that the obligation for the mitzvah by shofar already existed when they brought in Shabbos and therefore accepting Shabbos was like a vow said by mistake which does not need to be disavowed. But there is no obligation of Chanukah candles until the night time so when she lit Shabbos candles she was not obligated in Chanukah candles yet, if so then even accepting Shabbos was like making a vow by mistake nevertheless it was a mistake that just materialized after the vow was made so it needs a special annulment with an excuse and regret in front of 3 or a sage therefore Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach adds that at that point it is better just to ask someone else to light for you. (See Dirshu footnote 5 here.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #81

  1. Question: Why can a woman ask someone to light Chanukah candles for her if she forgot and lit Shabbos candles first but she can’t ask someone to make an eruv tavshilin for her if she forgot and already lit Yom Tov candles?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (679:1:1) says, if a woman is lighting Chanukah candles, since the custom is that we assume she accepts Shabbos as soon as she lights Shabbos candles, then she won’t be able to light Chanukah candles herself, rather she should ask someone else to light for her and he will say the first blessing for her but she can say the second blessing herself.

B. One can’t light fires on Shabbos.

C. There was a decree made that one makes an eruv tavshilin as a means to start cooking for the needs of Shabbos before Yom Tov  which permits one to prepare food on Yom Tov for the next day of Shabbos as if preparations is being done for everything and you would not transgress the prohibition of preparing on Yom Tov for the next day. 

 

Answer: Once she accepts upon herself Yom Tov by lighting candles then the whole concept of an eruv tavshilin doesn’t apply to her anymore because it only is applicable before Yom Tov starts but by lighting Chanukah candles the only issue is doing a melacha on Shabbos, transgressing Shabbos so someone who has not accepted Shabbos yet can light candles for her. (See Dirshu footnote 4 here.) [/edit]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #80

  1. Question: Why can a Jewish tax collector hire a non-Jew to do his job on Shabbos but a Jew who owns a laundromat cannot hire a non-Jew to do his job on Shabbos?

Background:

A. The Rema (244:6) says that if a Jew bought the right to be the government’s tax collector he can give that right to the non-Jew on Shabbos under the condition the non-Jew gets a cut of the amount he earned for the Jew on that day because he’s working for himself and there would be a big loss, sacrificing the whole job if he took off a day. He can rent the honor of collecting taxes to a non-Jew on Shabboses for the same reason, that the non-Jew is really just doing it for his own gain.

B. If a Jew owns a laundromat it must be closed on Shabbos and he can’t even rent the rights of owning it to a non-Jew on Shabbos with the non-Jew getting full profit of what was earned on Shabbos because it looks like the Jew’s store is open on Shabbos and he’s doing business.

C. Why isn’t the loss of money by the laundromat considered a significant loss?

Answer: See Dirshu (243:1:2,4) that the laundromat is only not making a profit for that day even if it is the busiest day of the week but the tax collecting job is a big loss because he will lose his job altogether.