Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Passover

In the Pesach Haggadah it writes:
 “In Every generation each person must view himself as if he was redeemed from Egypt.”
The message being we must live in the moment the message of yesteryear in order to impact our future!

Pesach is a time for asking questions and giving answers. Please share this Torah Riddle at your Yom Tov table and see if your family and guests can figure out the answer. Flex those brain muscles!

Question: Why do some women have a custom to say shehecheyanu twice on the Seder night, once by candle lighting and once while kiddush is made?

Background:  There is an obligation to say shehecheyanu for the Yom Tov upon lighting candles or saying kiddush, as well as for the mitzvos of eating matzah, and marror.

Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says that a woman who has the custom not to say amen after kiddush by other Yom Tovim nevertheless on the night of the Seder needs to answer amen for she said shehecheyanu on candle lighting while it was still day but the shehecheyanu you say at kiddush also counts for the other mitzvos of matzo and maror done at night. Rav Shmuel Wasner zt”l adds that this also answers why the women who have a custom to say shehecheyanu a second time by kiddush for when they lit they didn’t have in mind at all to fulfill the mitzvos of the night. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 473:1:1, footnote 4)

If you enjoyed this Torah Riddle please join us every week on Tuesdays at 9:45 AM EST or 3:00 PM EST at our Torah Riddles class via WebEx. You may participate via webcam or telephone, just email me your interest and I will send a WebEx invitation. We do two questions a week. If you just want the questions and can’t participate I can add you to the email list as well. Please email torahinteractive@gmail.com if you are interested please. Or visit torahinteractive.org‘s Torah Riddle page.

Chag kasher visameach,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2, halacha 2, rest of note 3

This week we wrapped up foot note 3 about the Gemaras in Bava Basra and Erechin which deals with the laws of apei tlasa. In the end we saw 5 views: 
1: Rashbam who says the speaker gets a sin for speaking lashon hara but those that heard amongst at least 3 people could repeat it since word spreads anyways.

 2: Tosfos says neither the speaker or listeners can speak out right lashon hara even in front of at least 3 people but avak lashon hara, which can be taken in two ways, as long as it has a positive slant is permissible to be said and repeated. 

3. The Rambam says that though lashon hara can’t be spoken but if heard in a crowd of at least 3 If it is repeated as long as one does not have the intent to spread it, he does not get a sin. 

4. Rabbeinu Yona says that one can spread the news to at least 3 at a time of a person who harmed another person, as long as all the rules of permissibility are met, which are discussed later on in Sefer Chofetz Chaim. Then others can spread the news to protect others from harm.

5. Rashi in Erechin seems to be saying that the case is when someone talks about his own business, good or bad or his own wrongdoings which normally should be kept a secret if divulged in front of one or two people but if said in a group of at least 3 he indicates that he does not care for the word to spread so other people can then go and spread the news. 
The Chofetz Chaim clearly indicates that none of this negative talk is allowed to be accepted, one can only take proper precautions when necessary, even if it is permissible to spread. He concludes that it would seem that this flexibility is very complex and practically uncommon so one should be very cautious to rely on it as will be enumerated further in the rest of the chapter. 

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #30

Question: Why can’t you say the blessing over challah for others at any Shabbos meal if you aren’t eating challah yourself but you could say the blessing for vegetables at the Seder on Pesach for karpas even if you aren’t participating in it, for others?

    Background:

A. The Mishna Berura says in (167:92) that the reason why one can say a blessing for someone else even to do a mitzva even if he himself already fulfilled the mitzvah is because “kol Yisrael areivim ze la’ze” we are all responsible for each other to do mitzvos so if one didn’t do a mitzva it is as if you yourself didn’t do the mitzva yet. However when just eating to eat, though one is obligated to say a blessing in order to eat and one cannot get pleasure from the world without a blessing but one can always choose to not eat and not need a blessing so the one who is not eating but would say a blessing for you is not considered obligated to say the blessing.

 B. The Mishna Berura (273:19) says it’s not an obligation as a mitzva to eat challah at the 3 meals of Shabbos, rather if one wants to enjoy food on Shabbos he has an obligation to say a blessing on lechem mishna, two loaves of challah, but technically if he enjoys fasting he does not have to eat.

C. Karpas is only eaten to make the children ask questions and is not an obligation to be eaten.

Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura (484:1:4:4) quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says karpas is different because its main purpose is for a mitzva, of telling over the story of the Exodus and not for any enjoyment but lechem Mishna which is mainly for one to eat on Shabbos is considered for the sake of enjoying one’s food.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #29

  1. Question: What is the Chazon Ish’s psak about one who swears: “I will not eat matzo on the night of Pesach and the seven days of the holiday “?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim siman 485) says that if one in general swears “I will not eat matzo” he is forbidden to eat matzo on the night of Pesach. If he swears “I will not eat matzo on the first night of Pesach” he gets lashes and must eat matzo on the night of Pesach.

B. The Mishna Berura there says that as a rule if one includes in his oath something that applies to a mitzva and also does not apply to a mitzva, the oath works and he can’t even do the mitzva like in this case if he swears in general to not eat matzo even if he says this on the night of Pesach, since it includes eating matzo in general which is not a mitzva and the night of Pesach which is a mitzva, he still cannot eat matzo even for the mitzva. But in the other case since he specified not eating on the night of Pesach then we can assume he was referring specifically to not wanting to fulfill the mitzva and an oath to not fulfill a mitzva or to transgress a mitzva does not work.

 C. The Be’ur Halacha says that if one swears “I will not eat matzo the whole week of Pesach” the oath works according to most poskim, even though Pesach is mentioned explicitly because the oath is inclusive of both matzo to be eaten for non-mitzva and mitzva purposes.

Answer: The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 123:2) says that since he separately mentioned the night of Pesach, it is not considered an oath inclusive of permissible (non-mitzva) things, rather it is two separate oaths, one for the night of Pesach and the other for the rest of the holiday and therefore the oath does not work for the night of Pesach and he must eat matzo then for the mitzvah.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 2, halacha 2, end of note 2 and beginning of note 3

This week we wrapped up Tosfos’ view of Apei Tlasa. Outright slander is forbidden to be said or accepted by the listeners even in front of 3 people. Only a statement that could be taken in two ways, as long as one would not be embarrassed to say it in the face of the one he is talking about, assuming he does not show any negative connotations, is permissible to be said in front of the person he is talking about and even in front of three people since word will get back to whom he was talking about and he has no shame saying it since there is nothing wrong with what he is intending to say. The people who heard this statement which could be taken in two ways but was said positively can now spread it to others.
 

What comes out from the ramifications of this Halacha is that this statement that can be taken for good or for bad cannot be said in front of one or two people even though your intent is positive. To get around that problem one should just say a statement that can’t be taken two ways. For example, if someone asks you where he can get some food don’t tell him so and so always has a pot on the stove which can mean either he’s a glutton or he always have guests, rather say so and so always has guests over. That you can say even in front of one or two people assuming you know the person asking won’t take advantage of his host and the host really doesn’t mind having guests all the time.

We then started discussing the Rambam’s view on apei tlasa in note 3. He understood the Gemara in Bava Basra who permits speaking in front of three because word spreads as follows: the initial person who speaks slander is in fact committing a sin but since it was said in front of three people and word spreads on that fashion then if one of the three repeated what he said as long as he didn’t repeat with the intentions to spread it further he does not get a sin since the damage has already been caused. If he does say it with intent to spread the slander then he is also sinning since he is trying to further the damage to the one spoken about.  

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #28

  1. Question: Rabbi Akiva Aiger asks and answers in his Responsa, first version, siman 30: Why do you make a blessing on separating Terumah even if done in one’s mind but a blessing is not said over bitul chometz, which can also be done in one’s mind?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura 432:1:3 says that you don’t say the blessing of “al bitul chometz “ upon nullifying the chometz since the main part of the bitul is dependent on the heart and we don’t say blessings on matters that pertain to one’s heart or thoughts.

 B. After teruma is separated from fruit it is given to the kohen but in this case the teruma is separated in one’s mind and the blessing is goes on separating teruma, not the giving.

C. What is Rebbe Akiva Aiger’s answer?

Answer: The purpose of separating teruma is to give it to the kohen so even if it was separated in one’s thoughts it is as if he did something which has an action since in the end it will lead to an action, i.e. giving it to the kohen. But nullifying the chometz is completely done in one’s heart even if he verbally announces it to the world.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #27

  1. Question: Why does one make a blessing of “al biur chometz” at the time of burning when he found chometz on Yom Tov but before Pesach we say the blessing by the checking, bedikas chometz?

Background:

 A. The Magen HaAlef (2) poskins that if one realizes on Yom Tov that he did not check for chometz before Pesach then he should check for chometz and cover it if he finds any because it is muktzah on Yom Tov and then on chol hamoed he should burn it with a blessing.

B.Normally we say the blessing and check for chometz the night before the eve of Pesach, then burn it in the morning, which is the proper time to burn the chometz, before chatzos, noonish. By chatzos all chometz is forbidden and automatically made ownerless by the Torah if you have not done it yourself by then.

 C. In normal circumstances the checking at night is considered the beginning of the mitzvah of burning and that is why the blessing is said then.

D. In both cases the checking and burning are on different days so why is the blessing said at different times?

Answer: As long as the time for burning hadn’t come yet then the checking is considered the beginning of the process of burning but once the time of burning already past and you found chometz on Yom Tov but you can’t just burn it until chol hamoed then the checking isn’t considered the beginning of the mitzvah since the time you burn has already past, so finding it is just one action and burning it is another action which just couldn’t be done earlier since it was muktzah. (See footnote 4 in Dirshu Mishna Berura 435:1:3)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #26

  1. Question: Why do we apply the rule of “Trei mashehu lo amrinan” that little bits don’t transfer twice when it comes to foods but not when it comes to vessels like a stirring spoon?

Background:

 A. The Mishna Berura (467:9:37) says, If a ladle stirred soup that had a cracked kernel of barley found inside it on Pesach while piping hot then you use the ladle to stir another boiling hot pot it ruins all the food in the pot and the pot because since it can prohibit with even a little bit then we assume even that little bit of taste went out of the spoon and into the next pot of soup.

B. The Shaar Hatzion (67) says this only applies by a spoon transferring from liquid to liquid but if that cracked barley kernel fell on a piece of hot meat and then that hot meat got mixed up with other hot solid foods like vegetables and there is a majority to nullify its taste, then as long as you can see and take out that solid piece of meat which had the chometz absorbed in it, then everything else is permitted at least to get benefit from and even to eat if not eating it would detract from the joy of Yom Tov.

C. The Taz (17) asks why the rule that little bits of taste don’t transfer twice apply to the spoon mixing two pots of soup just as it applies to the food.

D. Food has their own tastes absorbed in it but spoons don’t have their own tastes absorbed in them.

Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura note 41 quotes the Elya Rabba (447:1) saying that a little bit [of taste] absorbed in a spoon is different from a little bit absorbed in a solid food substance, for when it is absorbed in food the [foreign taste] clings to it and does not get spit out again from it and therefore we can apply the rule of “trei mashehu lo amrinan” but when absorbed in a spoon, since the spoon does not have its own taste, then the [chometz taste that was absorbed] does not cling to it so it then gets spit out into the other pot [the spoon was mixing.]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #25

  1. Question: Why is taste of chometz absorbed in food more stringent than taste of chometz absorbed in a vessel on Pesach?

Background:

A. The Rema (467:10) holds that we have a custom to burn a chicken which has a cracked kernel of wheat found in it, and you can’t leave it until after Pesach even though the physical chometz was removed and only the taste is absorbed in the chicken.

B. The Shulchan Aruch (451:1) says that any earthen ware vessels that chometz like oatmeal, which one uses throughout the year should be washed off of all physical chometz and put away until after Pesach. The Mishna Berura (2) says this applies to any other type of vessel if you don’t want to kasher them.

C. The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 117:15) says that technically one does not have to sell any chometz which is absorbed in vessels though he does include them in the language of his document of selling chometz as a stringency to get rid of every last bit of chometz.

D. The Chazon Ish says that really absorbed taste of chometz cannot be sold because it has no physical substance to it but since the taste can come out of the wall of the vessel it can be considered physical so he stringently sold it but Rav Elyashiv and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav both say as long as there aren’t any physical chometz on vessels they don’t have to be sold before Pesach.

E. The Chazon Ish in note 12 said that absorbed taste in a vessel is like chometz which was left in rubble which isn’t edible.

Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura (451:1:2:2) quoting the Chazon Ish answers that taste of chometz absorbed in food is different from taste absorbed in vessels since it is still edible in food even though it is not physically there but when eating the chicken for example it is like you would eat the chometz absorbed inside it, with it, so it should be burned according to the Rema except in extenuating circumstances.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Perek 2, Halacha 2, Note 2

The answer to Tosfos’ view on apei tlasa is that straight out negative lashon hara is forbidden to be said whether in front of 3 or more people or even to the antagonist’s straight up lashon hara is forbidden, also to listen and accept as true. However the leniency is in a case where the statement could be taken in two ways, positive or negative. The key to the leniency is if you don’t feel embarrassed at all to be willing to say it to his face then you may say it to him or her or even in front of 3 people since it will definitely get back to the person being talked about. However if you feel any embarrassment to say it or if your expressions, voice, physical, etc is of a negative connotation it should not be said.