Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #46

  1. Question: If someone stole an esrog on Sukkos and returns a different one of lesser value during Sukkos why is that ok but if one stole a garment with tzitzis on it and he returns a garment with tzitzis on it of lesser value it is not good enough? Background:
  2. The Mishna LiMelech (Hilchos Maaseh Korbanos 16:7) questioned whether the owner can claim I want to perform the mitzvah in the best possible way which is why I bought this expensive esrog, or can the thief claim back that since you already fulfilled the mitzvah at least once, the first time being the Torah level mitzvah and the rest rabbinic then he isn’t obligated in giving him back the nicest esrog. The Mishna LiMelech brought down the Maharam Mintz who proved from the 7th chapter of Bava Metzia that the owner has no right to claim that he wanted to perform the mitzvah in the best possible way.

Answer: The esrog itself is really not worth anymore that a few dollars but because of the holiday it is worth a lot more so one cannot claim the full amount he bought it for since it is inflated he just is entitled to a kosher esrog that can be used on Sukkos. However the garment has an intrinsic value and the tzitzis tied onto it just adds to its intrinsic beauty and value so the full value has to be paid back.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #45

  1. Question: What is the difference between taking out shaatnez from the collar of a four cornered garment after one has already tied tzitzis on it and removing an oath from the garment you swore you wouldn’t wear after you put tzitzis on it, according to the Pri Megadim?

Background:

A. The Pri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav 18:1) says that if one first put on tzitzis onto the garment and then removed the shaatnez one has to restring the tzitzis because the Torah says that one has to put on tzitzis on a garment ready to be worn, not make it obligated in tzitzis once the strings are already on, therefore if it has shaatnez on it, it is not wearable yet.

B. The Imray Binah mentions the case of a garment that one has sworn not to wear and then gets his oath annulled after putting on tzitzis. Why wouldn’t that be an issue of making it wearable after tzitzis is tied on it just like the shaatnez case?

Answer: The garment with shaatnez is forbidden to everyone so it is totally unwearable until fixed but the garment he swore not to wear is only forbidden to the one who made the oath but is permited to anyone else so it is considered ready to have tzitzis put on even before the owner is  able to wear it. You can also say that even if it was forbidden by an oath to the entire world it is different because it was a side issue which did not make it wearable but shaatnez is a fundamental issue in the garment itself so you must first take care of the issue then tie on the tzitzis.

Posted on

Consciences about What Others Think

At the end of last week’s Torah portion of Bamidbar, the Torah counts and discusses the role of the family of Kehas in the carrying of the mishkan. Then in the first two pesukim of this week’s Torah portion of Naso, it begins: “Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Raise up the head of the children of Gershon them also according to their father’s house, according to their family” (Bamidbar 4:21, 22).

The Daas Zekeinim, and the Rosh in a bit more detail, were wondering why the pasuk says “them also,” as if we would have thought otherwise. They answer: “for because of the earlier census (3:17) which was from one month old and older, the children of Gershon were counted first since he was the oldest of the tribe of Levi, as it says ‘And the children of Levi, Gershon, Kehas, and Merrari’ (Breishis 46:11). But this census of age 30 and up the children of Kehas were counted first because the main service was upon them, i.e. they carried the aron (ark), shulchan (table of the showbread), and the alters (see earlier 3:31). This is why it mentions “them also” by the children of Gershon, meaning that even though the children of Kehas were commanded to be counted first, the children of Gershon were not left out and not fully counted, rather they also were counted. [Click here and here for Hebrew text.] 

The family of Gershon was the first to be counted in the general census of the tribe of Levi, from one month of age and older, because Gershon was the firstborn of Levi. But when it came time to count the census of those doing the service for the Mishkan, from ages 30 to 50, the family of Kehas was counted first. Therefore the Torah says to not worry, the family of Gershon will also be counted in this census of the workers. The simple and obvious question is what is the concern? A few pesukim later in pasuk 38 the count for the family of Gershon is counted amongst those who are able to serve. They didn’t do anything wrong; there is nothing to suspect them about. The family of Kehas just had a more important role in the Mishkan than the family of Gershon, so why did the Torah have to waste two extra words just to tell us don’t worry they will be counted?

It must be, then, that people have a natural tendency of being suspicious of change when something different happens. We learn from here that one has a responsibility to quell the suspicions as much as possible at the very least in cases where there is no reason for anyone to be suspect as in this scenario. For this reason Hashem felt compelled to foreshadow at the beginning of the Torah portion that the family of Gershon will be counted in the second census even though, with enough patience we would see in the next aliyah that they are counted.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim, Chapter 2, Halachos 8-10

In halacha 8 we saw that it makes no difference how the speaker said don’t repeat it to anyone. A secret is a secret, even when said in a group of at least 3. However in the footnote, the Chofetz Chaim said, that it might be possible to repeat it to others if the speaker only said to not repeat it to the one being talked about, but he wasn’t sure. He also said that if two people are speaking and two are listening that does not count as a group of 3. The 3 must be only listeners not also speaking. The reason being, and this is an interesting but important psychology, is that Chaza”l say that bad people often regret what they do or say, therefore in this case if two were speaking an only two listening then it is very possible that those speaking might regret the negative they said about there fellow and wouldn’t want to repeat it so the news would never spread.

In halacha 9 we learned that adding anything to what one hear in front of 3 is absolutely forbidden whether it is just adding an acknowledgement that what you heard sounds nice or must be true and definitely embellishing what you heard is absolutely forbidden.

In halacha 10 the Chofetz Chaim warns that if you know that if one of the people listening is someone who is known to accept everything on face value as truth and has a tendency to spread it then you must be very careful not to speak to him anything even a hint of negativity about anyone. He concludes that the chances of being able to check off all that has to be checked off in order to use the leniency of apie tlasa is very far-fetched and even if you do there are poskim that say the leniency should not be used because it has no source in the Talmud. So stay far away. We concluded that even in a case where the statement made can be taken in two ways, should also be avoided, therefore if you want to bring your message across be as clear and positive as possible, like in a case where someone asks where he can get a good meal, be straight forward, don’t say this family always has something boiling up in there pot.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #44

Question: When creating a habit why would the fact that you made a mistake and said morid hageshem in your shemone esray after Pesach not disrupt and force you to start all over again the 30 day count of creating a habit but if an ox gores a cow one day then stops when he sees other cows for a couple of days then gores two more cows on consecutive days that does not create a habit of a muad, a habitual goring cow?

Background:

 A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 114:8) says that after 30 days of not saying morid hageshem in the summer or vice versa in the winter then one can assume that he said it if he is unsure but within 30 days he must go back and repeat shemone esray if he is unsure because he hasn’t yet created a habit to say or ignore morid hageshem.

 B. The Machatzis Hashekel is wondering why if one makes a mistake he doesn’t have to start the 30 days all over again in order to create the habit.

 C. The Gemara in Bava Kama daf 36 says that if an ox gores one day and the next day does not gore then gores for another two consecutive days it is not habitual because the first goring doesn’t combine with the other two (3 are needed to create a habit) since in between he saw cows and didn’t gore them.

Answer: The ox has to show that he formed a consistent pattern of an assumption that it will constantly gore if faced with the situation to gore if it doesn’t create the pattern it does not become a muad, habitual. Whereas the 30 days one needs to get use to saying morid hageshem or vice versa is creating a habit one is not used to so each time one does it correctly it compounded and combines with the previous time to create an amplifying affect which turns into a habit after 30 days so if one missed one or two days it is alright because he is not used to it yet but the cumulative effect is still building up until he is use to it after 30 days. (It has nothing to do with a pattern.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test # 43

1. Question: Why does the Gemara in Yevamos find fault in nullifying the mitzvah of Yibum if one creates a situation where it is forbidden for it to be done but if that is the case it should be forbidden to take off your four corner garment because one is nullifying the mitzvah of tzitzis?

Background:

 A. The Gemara in Yevamos says that there is a view who holds that it is forbidden to nullify the mitzvah of yibum for example: If there are four brothers, two of them married two sisters and died and we say that the other two brothers should do chalitza not yibum for if one of the remaining brothers do yibum and then dies then the last brother cannot do yibum or chalitza after he die yibum to one of the sisters before because the Yevama would be the sister of his wife.

B. The mitzvah of tzitzis is to don tzitzis on a four cornered garment one is wearing or wrapped in.

C. The mitzvah of yibum is to marry the wife of your childless brother with the intention of upholding his name by having a child through his widowed wife.

Answer: The mitzvah of yibum is still there his brother still died childless it is just that he can’t fulfill it because it would be his wife’s sister who is forbidden to him, so there would be an overriding exemption. The Gemara is saying that one is not allowed to put in himself into a position that he would be forced to be exempt from the mitzvah. Whereas when one takes off his garment the entire mitzvah is gone it’s not like it is there but there is an exemption therefore it is not considered nullifying the mitzvah to take off one’s tzitzis garment.

Posted on

Bamidbar – Proper Respect

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 lesson in this week’s Torah portion of Bamidbar, the beginning of the Torah’s fourth book, which might not sound so profound at first glance. Yet if the Torah decided to emphasize it, it is worth taking the time to analyze and appreciate its lesson.
In the beginning of the third perek of Bamidbar, the Torah states:

1These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe on the day that the Lord spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai.אוְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּמשֶׁ֑ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֧ר ד’ אֶת־משֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינָֽי:
2These are the names of the sons of Aharon: Nadav the firstborn Avihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.בוְאֵ֛לֶּה שְׁמ֥וֹת בְּנֵי־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַבְּכֹ֣ר | נָדָ֑ב וַֽאֲבִיה֕וּא אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאִֽיתָמָֽר:

 The Maharam from Rottenberg, a Rishon, asks: what difference does it make for the Torah to mention that Nadav was the firstborn? He did not get a double portion in the distribution of the land, since the kohanim did not receive any share in the land [of Israel when they conquered it]?

The Maharam explains that in fact there is a separation between the word “bechor” (which means first born) and the name “Nadav” [denoted by a line in our chumashim as seen above. We know this through a tradition dating back to when we received the Torah on Har Sinai]. This means the word “firstborn” is referring to Aharon, telling us that Aharon was older than Moshe. We shouldn’t wonder why the previous pasuk started off listing Aharon then Moshe, for Aharon was older than Moshe and when the lineage was being counted it was counted in order of age, not wisdom. This also happened earlier in the book of Shemos, in the Torah portion of Vaera; when stating the lineage [of Amram] the Torah writes: “And he bore Aharon and Moshe” (Shemos 6:20). After that in pasuk 26 it is written: “it is Aharon and Moshe” who were mentioned earlier by the lineage. Then after that, in pasuk 27 the Torah says: “They were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh… Moshe and Aharon,” meaning when it came to mentioning them talking to the king as well as bringing the Jews out of Egypt, Moshe comes before Aharon. (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)

Shavuos is upon us, the day we received the Torah on Har Sinai. Moshe Rabbeinu, who chaza”l considered the king of the Jewish people in the desert, brought down the Torah from Heaven to teach it to us. He was on the mountain top for forty days and forty nights without eating or drinking. He sacrificed his life for Torah and for that reason it is called ‘Toras Moshe,’ Moshe’s Torah. That being said, one would think Moshe, chosen by G-d to be the leader and king of the Jewish People, would have earned the right to be written first every time he is mentioned alongside anyone else; isn’t that just and proper respect of a king?

Furthermore, even if Hashem wanted to acknowledge and teach us that Aharon was born first, He need only tell us that a single time. The Torah even says that Moshe was 80 and Aharon was 83 (in that order) when first confronting Pharaoh to let the Jewish people go (Shemos 7:7). Why then must Hashem put Aharon first before Moshe when each time lineage is discussed?

However it would seem that Hashem is driving home an important lesson in respect and honor to our fellow man. Granted, respect and honor can be earned through diligence in Torah study and good deeds, and must be acknowledged by others, but there are also innate and natural times of respect that cannot be ignored, such as when the lineage is being counted and Aharon, the older brother, was mentioned first each time in the Torah because in respect to family lineage that respect and honor needs to be identified each time. Yet when it came to speaking to Pharaoh and leading the Jews out of Egypt, Moshe was always mentioned before Aharon because he earned that respect, and was therefore appointed to be the leader and king of the Jewish people.

Similarly, the Ramban in the Torah portion of Kedoshim clearly says by the verse: “You shall rise before a venerable person and you shall respect the elderly, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord” (Vayikra 19:32), that one has a mitzvah to stand before the elderly even if he is a layman. Granted, for a sage, at whatever age, there is a mitzvah to stand up when they enter the room because they earned that status of honor and respect. But even a person who isn’t so learned, but simply has the experience of years, has a natural, innate honor that should be respected, and therefore there is a mitzvah to stand when an elderly person, be it even a simple layman, enters the room (as long as he is not wicked).

The lesson is clear. We have to show proper respect and honor when and where it is due. The trick, though, which is not so easy, is to acknowledge this fact so one can properly act on it when the situation arises.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2 Halacha 7 Footnotes 15 & 16

Today we learned about keeping secrets. Even if lashon hara was said in a group and could inevitably spread but if they were told to keep it a secret then no one is ever permitted to reveal it. Even if one or two others broke the promise of secrecy the third cannot reveal it because without him it will not go public. The whole allowance of apei tlasa is because when there are three people who heard the news three people are enough to create a chain reaction of everyone hearing about it. If it is one or two people then a lot of people might wind up hearing about it but not everyone. Even so there are others reason of why not to repeat it. The Yad Ketana said it can only be repeated because the person telling it obviously didn’t mind it being repated if said in a group but in this case he does mind because he told everyone to keep it a secret. There is also a verse in Mishlei (11:13) which says “One who walk as a talebearer reveals secrets.” There seems to be an extra special prohibition of revealing secrets so even if it was told in a group of four and three of them broke the secret so everyone knows about it, the fourth one is still forbidden to tell it over to anyone.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #42

Question: Why does Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach say that we do say Tachanun on the 13th of Sivan even if living outside of Israel even according to the opinion that one does not say Tachanun for six days after Shavuos which was the make up time of when they would bring their Yom Tov offering in the beis hamikdash since not everyone could do it on Shavuos itself?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (131:7:36) writes that there are places who have the custom to not say Tachanun all six days after Shavuos since they used to make up the sacrifices of the holiday during those days.

 B. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach holds the count of those days does not start after the second day of Shavuos outside of Israel, rather after the first day which is the sixth of Sivan so there would be no Tachanun until the 12th and they would start back saying it on the 13th.

Answer: The sacrifices were only brought in the Beis Hamikdash in Israel which only keeps one day so that is why we don’t start counting from the day after Shavuos ends outside of Israel. (See Dirshu note 14 in Mishna Berura 494:3:8).

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #41

  1. Question: Why doesn’t Tosefes Yom Tov, taking on Yom Tov early in regards to prohibiting yourself from doing melacha before sunset, not contradict the 49 complete days of the Omer but saying kiddush and maariv before nighttime does?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (494:1:1) says that maariv should be pushed off to later on the first night of Shavuos until the stars come and it is completely night so that the days of the counting of Omer will be 49 complete days.

B. The Pri Megadim says this applies to saying kiddush also, if one would eat first then Daven maariv in a set minyan or for a woman who is alone and is not davening maariv.

 C. Rav Nosson Karelitz says one can accept upon himself “Tosefes Yom Tov” because that doesn’t take away from the completeness of 49 full days it is just that one cannot do any melacha because he took upon himself Tosefes Yom Tov.

Answer: Davening maariv or saying kiddush is an action which actively shows they are moving on to the next day so if done earlier they are not completing the 49 days of counting. Whereas refraining from doing malacha is passive, all it is taking a vow not to do any work for a certain time period for the sake of honoring the Yom Tov but it does not show that they are ready to move on to the next day. (See footnote 1 and 2 in Dirshu there.)