Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #56

1.  Question: Why does the borrower have to pay $200 and not $100 or $300 in the following case? 
Background: 
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 30:3) brings a case of Reuvain who claims Shimon owes him $1500. He has five witnesses, one says he borrowed $100 another said $200, another said $300, another says $400 and the last one said he borrowed $500. If they all claim the loan took place on the same day but with different amounts Shimon only owes $200 because if you are trying to extract money from someone you have to bring proof. (Hamotzi mechavero alav hara’aya.) 
B. The Sm”a (17) says the number $200 is based on the fact that there are two witnesses who said he owes no more than $200 even though there are 3 witnesses that say he owes at least $300. 
C. There is a rule in Shas that two witnesses and even 100 witnesses are all the same, meaning more witnesses on one side does not create a majority to beat out witnesses on the other side if there are at least 2.
 D. There is a logic in Shas that within $200 is $100. (Bichlal masayim manah.)

Answer: They certainly don’t pay no more than 200 because the 3 witnesses who say he should pay more are no better than the ones who say they owe the most 200 and they also admit he at least owes $200. Shimon won’t only owe $100 because the one who says he borrowed $100 could add up and combine with the other to $200, though not more than that because the $200 witness only said he owes no more than $200.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #55

  1. Question: Why are those listening to the bracha seem to be more lenient in terms of if they spoke before eating then one who actually said the blessing?

Background:

A. The Rema (Orach Chaim 167:6) says that when one speaks unneeded words before they take a bite they have to make a new blessing, is only if they spoke before the one who said the blessing for them took a bite, but if they spoke after he took a bite it is not considered a separation between the blessing and them eating even though they didn’t eat yet, but they all fulfilled their obligation with the blesser eating his piece. Not everyone needs to eat from the bread he said the blessing they just do that to show a love for the mitzvah.

B. The Magen Avrohom and Taz both ask how it is possible that the listeners are better than the blesser, for by the blesser we say that if he talks before he takes a bite he has to say a new blessing because he made a separation between the blessing and eating. But by the listeners even if they make a separation between the blessing and eating they don’t need to make another blessing?

C. The commentaries’ question is based on the assumption that the concept of “listening is like answering” means that it is as if the listener said the blessing.

D. The Rema seems to hold that the explanation of “listening is like answering” is that really only the blesser is blessing but the blessing counts for those listening as well by just listening.

Answer:Once the blesser eats the blessing is put into play for everyone and really nothing more has to be done for everyone to eat so the ones listening can’t ruin it but as long as the blesser didn’t eat yet then the blessing doesn’t work so if he says something in between the blessing doesn’t connect to the food for anyone. (Whereas if you would say that it is as if each person makes the blessing then the blessing actually wouldn’t go into play and work until everyone ate without interruption.)

Posted on

Balak – Ingratitude on a Whole New Level

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.

When speaking in terms of an ingrate what usually comes to mind is a person who had a favor done for them, which they haven’t acknowledged at all. No ‘thank you’ and maybe even a criticism of how it was done. In the worst case scenario, not even realizing a favor was done, and acting nastily to the person. But Bilaam in the Torah Portion of Balak takes it to a whole new level.

Bilaam, the prophet anointed by Hashem for the non-Jewish world, was hired to curse the Jewish people. Hashem told him not to go and do it. When Bilaam decided otherwise, Hashem said that He would hijack Bilaam’s  power of speech, only allowing him to say what He would force him to say. “The Lord placed word into Balaam’s mouth, and He said, ‘Return to Balak and say as follows. When he returned, Balak was standing next to his burnt offering, he and all the Moabite dignitaries. He took up his parable and said, ‘Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, from the mountains of the east [saying], ‘Come, curse Jacob for me and come invoke wrath against Israel.’ How can I curse whom God has not cursed, and how can I invoke wrath if the Lord has not been angered?” (Bamidbar 23:5-8).

The Baal HaTurim clearly indicates that though Hashem controlled Bilaam’s speech, Hashem didn’t take control of Bilaam’s thoughts and intentions. When Bilaam “took up his parable” in pasuk 7, the Baal HaTurim says that Bilaam raised his voice so that all the 70 nations of the world could hear, so that they would be jealous of the Jews, just as Chaza”l say that if one blesses his friend in a loud voice it is considered a curse to him. The Baal HaTurim goes on to explain two reasons why Bilaam mentioned Aram. The first is that Bilaam came from Aram. Some say he was a great grandchild of Lavan, and there is even another Medrish which says Bilaam was actually Lavan. Either way, Bilaam was saying ‘How can we come upon them from Aram to curse them if from Aram their forefathers came, Avraham Avinu,  came laden with blessing as it says, “You shall go from your land…and I will bless you…” So to by Yaakov Avinu it says he went back to Aram laden with all the blessings as it says, “Behold I am with you and I will protect you…”
The second reason given by the Baal HaTurim  why Bilaam mentions Aram (which seems to go hand in hand with the first reason and doesn’t seem to be brought to argue on it),  is that “from Aram” means that if not for them we would not exist. Bilaam is telling Balak that we are from Aram and around the same time as the Binding of Yitzchok, Milkah conceived through Nachor as it says “Behold Milkah also gave birth…” ‘And you are also and ingrate (kafui tov) for if not for Avraham you would never have been born for in his merit Lot was saved from Sodom. I am also an ingrate for if Yaakov would not have come to Lavan he would not have had sons, and we are coming to Aram to curse them?!’ (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Even though Hashem took control of Bilaam’s speech and did not let him curse the Jewish people, Bilaam still had free choice over his thoughts and he had evil intentions of causing jealousy among the non-Jewish nations by making sure he was heard throughout the world when he said the blessings that came out of his mouth. In this way he was hoping the nations would cast an evil eye (ayin hara) on the Jews or perhaps it would even provoke them, as a whole, to take action against the Jews. He had all this in mind, even though he felt a sense of gratitude towards the Jewish people. He acknowledged that if not for them he would no longer be alive. Indeed, neither would Moav, who was a direct descendant of Lot and his daughter who were saved by the destruction of Sodom. Yet, despite possessing this sense of gratitude, he was still planning to curse the Jewish People, and when that didn’t work he still tried to spread an ayin hara on them.

How could this be? How could Bilaam have been so ungrateful? His actions were that of gratitude, by blessing the Jewish people, albeit he was forced; but he knew what he was doing. He told Balak he would be blessing them. He even acknowledged all the good that the Jews did for him and Balak. Yet, since his original intentions were to curse them because that was what he was hired to do and he would be getting a lot of fame and honor for doing so, and even when he saw he wouldn’t be successful, he still tried to undermine Hashem with his evil intentions of trying to make everyone jealous. He was therefore being ungrateful and even admitted knowing what he was doing, and did it anyways!

This is a whole new dimension of ingratitude. Bilaam wasn’t oblivious to the good the Jews did to him and was therefore willing to take actions against them. He knew that if not for them, both he and Balak would not be alive! He even verbally acknowledged that, and admitted that they should have a feeling of gratitude towards the Jewish people. Yet he still tried undermining them to the very end. Wow, this is the complexity of the human mind and emotions!



Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 3, Halachos 1 and 2

Halacha 1: There are 3 levels of lashon hara all worse than the next.

A. Saying lashon hara behind one’s back which not only do you get a sin of lashon hara but you also get a curse for hurting someone in a hidden way.

B. Saying lashon hara about someone in the crowd. So he is there but it is not to his face.

C. Saying lashon hara to one’s face with a group around which not only do you have the sins of lashon hara and ona’as devarim which is insulting someone to his or her face but you are also acting in a very negative manner by using the terrible attribute of audacity and chutzpah besides the fact that you embarrassed the guy which if done without teshuva one has no share in the World to Come.

Halacha 2: There is a chaza”l that says if one is willing to say something to the guy’s face then it must be permissible to say but that is only in context of avak lashon hara, a statement that can be taken in two ways, good or bad, depending on one’s connotations, voice, movements, who it’s being said to etc. The fact that one is willing to say it to the guy’s face is usually a litmus test that he is saying something positive because the nature of a person is to avoid someone he is speaking bad about but that does not mean that if he is willing to speak negatively about the guy to his face it is permissible. It just means you are willing to stoop so low to go beyond human nature. For example if you say “someone is big” then that can mean he is a big fat lazy shlub or it can mean that he is big and strong and can help people lift things or protect them. Depending on how one says it, does he look or sound nervous when saying it confident. Or is he making gestures that look like he is making fun of the guy. Is it in context of trying to help someone in need or is it with a group of scoffer last that love making fun of people all these things must be taken into account but if he is willing to say the guy is big when he is right there it is most likely an indicator that it’s a positive statement. The key is to think of what you are about to say and how you are going to say it will cause more harm or will help.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #54

  1. Question: According to the Pri Megadim what is the difference between a half slave half free person who can’t blow shofar or read megilla himself but could have someone do it for him and he fulfills those mitzvahs through the messenger but the Pri Megadim does not understand why a person can light Chanukah candles for another person who took on Shabbos early and forgot to light Chanukah candles?

Background:

A. The Pri Megadim did not understand how you can have someone else light Chanukah candles for you if you accidentally first lit Shabbos candles because there is a rule that whatever you can’t do your messenger can’t do for you. This is because the messenger of a person is like himself so if you can’t do it he can’t do it either.

B. The Mahara”m Shick (chelek 1, Even HaEzer, teshuva 129) answers the Pri Megadim’s difficulty by saying this rule that a messenger can’t do something the sender can’t do only applies if the job and the problem is the same, (for example someone asking a messenger to marry him to a relative like his own daughter or mother.) But in this case there are two different factors, Chanukah and Shabbos. The fact that it is Shabbos for this person now is a technicality so the messenger can act on his behalf.

C. This technicality concept is exactly why a half slave half free person can fulfill the mitzvah through others according to the Mahara”m Shick, meaning the only reason why he can’t do the mitzvos himself is because he is a half slave otherwise there is nothing wrong with him doing the mitzvah therefore someone else can do it for him.

The Pri Megadim obviously does not hold of this technical logic so why could others be a messenger for the half slave half free person but it does not make sense in his eyes why a messenger can light Chanukah candles after the sender took on Shabbos?

Answer: By the Chanukah candles case, granted it is a technicality which doesn’t allow him to light but he still can’t light because it is Shabbos and a technicality is no excuse according to the Pri Megadim. But the half free person side really can fulfill any mitzvah it is just that the half slave side is stopping him so a messenger can do the mitzvah for the half free side.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #53

  1. Questions: The Beis HaLevi on the Torah in his section on Chanukah says one has to light a menorah at each of his entrances if he has more than one, so that people won’t suspect him of not lighting. According to the opinion that one does not have to relight his menorah if it blew out within a half an hour, why wouldn’t the same concern apply that people will think he did not light Chanukah candles?

Background:

A. There is an argument between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda in the gemara whether one has to relight the candles if they blew out within the half hour required time limit or since they potentially had the ability to stay lit for that long the mitzvah is fulfilled.

B. The concern of why one has to light in two entrances is a מראית עין issue.

Answer: By the case of two entrances there is really an obligation on the home owner to light in two places from the start because of this concern. But in the case where the light blew out he technically fulfilled his mitzvah already so we won’t force him to be obligated again just because of a concern that just popped up.

Posted on

Chukas – How Much Do You Believe In Hashem?

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.

There is a book mentioned in this week’s Torah portion of Chukas called “The Book of Wars of Hashem” (Bamidbar 21:14). What is this book? Where is it today?  Why is Hashem quoting it in His Torah? The Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that it is a separate book and written inside it are the wars of Hashem that were waged for His G-D fearing followers. It began being compiled in the days of Avraham Avinu.  This book and  many other books  have been lost to antiquity, like The Words of Nosson and Ido, or The Chronicles of Kings of Israel, as well as the Songs of Shlomo and his Parables. The Daas Zekeinim adds that “The Book of Wars of Hashem” mentions the victory of Sihon over Moav, which the Torah just alluded to in the previous pasuk; the point being that Hashem orchestrated that one nation would fall into the hands of the other.

However the Ramban has a slightly different take on this, which could be an eyeopener. It takes us to task for how much we actively relate to belief in Hashem. The Ramban says that the simple understanding of “The Book of Wars of Hashem” is that in those generations there were intellectuals who wrote about the great wars of the time, and it took place in every generation. The authors of these books were called Storytellers, for there were many parables and highfalutin phrases mentioned inside these books. They attributed the incredible victories in those wars to Hashem because it was in fact the truth. The victory of Sihon over Moav was wondrous in their eyes and therefore they wrote it in this book. (Click here for the Hebrew text.)
These intellectuals were historians who do not seem to be Jewish based on the context of the Ramban, and though they lived in a heavily polytheistic time in history they were able to attribute the incredibly wondrous battles and victories, even amongst two non-Jewish neighboring nations, to Hashem. Why? Because it was the truth!

What a curious phenomenon! Imagine a historian writing a book on the history of American wars, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, America’s involvement in the two World Wars, etc. Do you think he would call it “G-D’s Wars”?!

But in fact, if you think about it, it is the truth, as the Daas Zekeinim points out: Hashem enabled one side to fall into the hands of the other. What is incredible is that those historians back in the day were able to recognize that and acknowledge it. Granted the whole world at the time heard and felt the rumbles of the miracles at the Red Sea and at Mount Sinai, but that was almost forty years previous, and they were still very involved in their worship of idols. It took intellectuals to think logically about what the truth was; but it took a lot of courage for those intellectuals to admit and publicize it. For that matter it was worth it to Hashem to acknowledge them in His Torah.

All the more so us Jews, the personal princes and princesses of The King Of All Kings, who have an even more personal relationship with G-D, b’chasdei Hashem, should find and acknowledge the kindness of Hashem in every step of our lives.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #52

Question: Why aren’t raisins which the owner thought were not ready by twilight of Shabbos (bein hashmashos) muktzah just like a hammer or rock which one has no use for is muktzah as soon as Shabbos comes in?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 310:4) says that if dates or grapes are being dried and the owner puts them out of his mind as Shabbos comes in but by twilight (bein hashmashos) they were already fully dried and edible, even though the owner didn’t know at the time that it dried but after Shabbos started he was informed it was ready to be eaten at twilight. The Halacha is that it is permitted to be eaten and it is not muktzah though he seemingly mistakenly put them out of his mind as Shabbos came in.

B. Why not say a mistake is a mistake and it can’t be fixed just like any other muktzah item that you thought you had no use for as Shabbos came in and you might change your mind during Shabbos?

Answer: Look at Mishna Berura (17): Really he made no mistake in his mind, rather his mindset was that if as long as they are not ready they are out of his mind and once they are ready then he has them in mind to eat, he just wasn’t informed they were ready until after shabbos started but they were ready to be eaten as Shabbos started so they were never muktzah.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #51

  1. Question: According to the view that you are allowed to say shehecheyanu on just seeing a new fruit why won’t the blessing work on any new fruit you have in mind that you will be seeing even after a few seconds (achar kdei dibur) just like the blessing on eating a fruit works for whatever you have in mind even if it comes out much later in the same meal?

Background:

A. The Ashel Avraham (siman 225) says that if the fruit was not in the house and you cannot see it when saying shehecheyanu, even if you had both fruits in mind only the one at the table is exempted but the one not within eyesight would not be exempted even if it came a few seconds later but after kdei dibur.

B. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 206:5 and Yoreh Deah 19:7) says that the blessing made on one food or one shechting can exempt many others that come afterwards.

C. What obligates one to say a blessing on eating the fruit is the actual eating. So to what obligates the blessing by shechita is the mitzvah of shechita.

D. What obligates the blessing of shehecheyanu upon seeing a new fruit is the joy upon seeing it.

Answer: Since the obligation of the blessing on the food or shechita is in the food or animal itself then it is already ready and in existence even if it is not here yet but the joy over the fruit which sparks an obligation of shehecheyanu only comes when the person sees the fruit so if it is not here in front of him the obligation of the blessing has not started yet for the next fruit so the blessing doesn’t extend to the next one if it isn’t toch kdei dibur.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2 Halacha 13

 This week we concluded the second chapter which focused on the laws of Apei tlasa, speakingbin a group of at least 3 which guarantees that word will travel.

We learned a very important Halacha which doesn’t necessarily apply to lashon hara but to the laws of apei tlasa. There are times when a person will tell something that seems to be private like about his business or personal life, for example a sin that he did. If he divulged the information to one or two people we would have to assume he did not want it repeated however if he said it in front of at least 3 people he shows he does not care that it will be repeated and it is permissible to repeat it to anyone. The Chofetz Chaim has two versions of this clause:

1. It is proper manners to not repeat anything someone tells you unless he gives explicit permission to repeat it. This is based on a Gemara in Yoma 4b which said that Hashem gave permission to Moshe to repeat what He told him from inside the Tent of Meeting which no one else was able to hear. That is what the word “leimor” teaches us. If for Torah that Hashem taught Moshe, and besides that there is no way to harm or insult Hashem in any way, but still permission has to be given to repeat it all the more so when someone tells you something it should not be repeated unless with permission, certainly if it is something personal but even if it is not personal one should still accustom himself to keep his mouth shut. An application of this halacha is that if someone tells you that someone else is very sick or in the hospital you can’t just spread it for others to daven for them. You have to first ask permission.

        2.      Really it is only inappropriate to repeat something (assuming it is not lashon hara, which is pretty much always forbidden) if it was said in private unless given permission. If it was said outside then it can be repeated if it is not something private, for example if you were talking about last night’s baseball game but if it was a private matter which he told you outside then if repeating it to someone else might cause something bad to happen to the one who first said it then it can’t just be repeated if not then it will be fine to repeat. However if it was said in front of at least three people even if it might be harmful if repeated one can still do so because the one who first divulged the information to the group indicated he didn’t care for it to be repeated since he said it in public, assuming he didn’t say to keep it hush hush. However one can only intentionally spread it if it was business that was divulged because he obviously wants it leaked and spread everywhere but if he divulged some personal information that for example he admits to a group that he ate in a non-kosher restaurant one time then though it is permissible to repeat but one shouldn’t have intention to spread the news because it is a cause of embarrassment. Even though he indicated he doesn’t care if it is repeated it is still not right to purposely publicize just like one should give a negative nickname to someone even if he seems to not care because deep down inside it is still shameful.