Author: Rabbi Milder

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.)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2 halacha 6 note 14

Today we discussed that apei tlasa, in most cases only can be spread within the immediate area that the original lashon hara was heard. The Chofetz Chaim made a distinction between major sins like adultery which will spread elsewhere from city to city, and for example a tailor who is known to mess up on his jobs which is minor so can only be contained in the city that it was spoken. He said that even if it is a very big city then the apei tlasa would only be spread in that area an no further. For example a minor sin or mistake like the tailor case which was said in Flatbush cannot be spread o the rest of New York City like in Queens, Manhattan or maybe even Boro Park. One way to possibly gauge the difference between a major sin and a minor one is whether it would be in the local news or make it to the national news networks. But we were unsure, with the advent of internet and social media if the city limits have broadened, but as the Chofetz Chaim is constantly saying, one should err on the side of error and stay as far away as possible from permitting such speech.

Posted on

Bechukosai – The Gentiles and the Captured Baby


There is a very penetrating Medrish Tanchuma towards the beginning of the last Torah Portion in the Book of Vayikra, the Torah portion of Bechukosai: “Another understanding of ‘If you follow my decrees…then I will provide you rain in their time… But if you will not listen to me…I will make your sky like iron’ (Vayikra 26:3, 4, 14, 19).  It also says ‘Therefore because of you the heavens have kept back, so that there is no dew, and the earth has kept back its produce’ (Chagai 1:10). For because of your iniquities even the gentiles are smitten. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi said, ‘If the gentiles would know that because of Jewish sins they are smitten, they would appoint two soldiers for each Jew in order to be sure they listen to the Torah and not sin. And not only do the gentiles not guard the Jews but they further stop us from performing mitzvos that if they sin the hold world is smitten as it says, ‘Therefore because of you the heavens have kept back, so that there is no dew.’ And if they don’t sin the whole world is blessed because of them as it says, ‘and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed,’ (Breishis 26:4)” (Medrish Tanchuma, parshas Bichukosai, paragraph 2). (Click here for the Hebrew text.)
If the gentiles only knew that the Jews were the cause of all the problems in the world, droughts, floods, earthquakes, etc. the medrish does not say they would attack the Jews for causing so much trouble, rather they would appoint two soldiers to every Jew. One to make sure he or she follows and performs the positive mitzvos of the Torah and the other to be sure he or she does not transgress the negative mitzvos of the Torah. If that is the case, then why don’t we just tell them? Word should have spread throughout the world so that everyone would know and take proper precautions to be sure the Jews are observing the Torah properly. It is even easier now a day with social media to get the word out!

However it does not seem as simple as that. If you look closely into the words of the medrish, the medrish faults the gentiles for not only the lack of guarding us but inciting us to sin, for example what happened in the times of the Greeks and Hellenism. The Medrish says, “But they further stop us from performing mitzvos that if they sin the whole world is smitten as it says, ‘Therefore because of you the heavens have kept back, so that there is no dew.’ Why does the medrish repeat the fact that the whole world is affected by the sin of the Jews and the verse that proves it? It would seem by the connection that the medrish makes between the gentiles stopping us “from performing mitzvos that if they sin the whole world will be smitten,” that there is a message the medrish is trying to tell us. The Medrish is saying that they don’t really know, or to be precise they don’t appreciate or believe that it is because of a Jewish sin that all the problems come to the world and vice versa if the Jews do what they are supposed to blessing comes into the world. If they truly appreciated and believed it they would not try to dissuade us from doing mitzvos but on the contrary they would make sure we all perform them. It comes out that one does not truly know something unless he actually appreciates and believes something about it.

In a similar vein, I have heard from my rebbeim that a tinok shenishba, literally a baby who was captured, not only refers to any Jew who was not given a chance to be brought up Torah observant but even refers to a Jew who might have heard about mitzvos, the example they gave was a secular Israeli who is surrounded by the Holiness of the Land, has all the archeological evidence about Tanach and the Talmudic scholars, as well as plenty of yeshivas all around them, so how can they be considered ignorant, without any chance of learning?  The answer they gave was that a Jew is considered a tinok shenishba even if one might know or is able to know about halacha, Jewish law, but doesn’t appreciate or never had a chance to believe in the severity of reward and punishment and it’s ramifications.

This doesn’t mean those less privileged get an easy pass, and are absolved from being Torah observant. Ultimately, Hashem looks into the inner most depths of one’s heart and knows if he or she had a chance and took advantage of growing in Torah and mitzvos. If they had the potential then there are little to no excuses, however if there was no chance or potential of knowing or appreciating the severity and advantages of being Torah observant with all its halachic standards then that person will get a pass in Heaven.

Unfortunately nowadays even with all the technology to put knowledge at our fingertips many people do not grasp what living a Torah way of life is all about. They are virtually clueless of how to begin to know what it means no less to appreciate the beauty and profundity of Hashem’s Torah and to walk in His ways. This should charge those that do follow Hashem’s will with the impetus to continue to strive to make this world a better place.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #40

  1. Question: Why can a single Jewish witness absolve himself from paying for what he forced his fellow Jew to pay in non-Jewish court by claiming he was just telling the truth but if a person forcefully takes away something from one person in front of two witnesses which supposedly belongs to his friend and his friend skips town, he must pay back the guy he “stole” from because he is only one witness that says it belongs to his friend even if he claims he is telling the truth?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:3) presents a case where a non-Jew brings a Jew to non-Jewish court claiming he is owed money and a single Jewish witness testifies against his fellow Jew. The Shulchan Aruch says that the witness is excommunicated for testifying by himself against a fellow Jew and it is in fact forbidden to do. However the Rema adds that he would not have to pay for the loss of money he caused his fellow Jew to receive because he can claim “I was just telling the truth,” and in fact the Rema says in si’if 4 that if it were two witnesses that testified against the Jew in non-Jewish court that would be fine because they can do the same in Jewish court. Of course if the witness was lying he’d have to pay.

B. The Ketzos in footnote 4 adds that if the one witness was a relative of the Jew or invalid to testify in Jewish court then he feels he should have to pay for the loss he caused to his fellow Jew even if he claims he was telling the truth because he is an invalid witness whereas the single kosher witness is still a witness he just can’t testify without someone else in Jewish court.

Answer: . The person who grabbed from his fellow for his friend has no proof that he is telling the truth and he lost his credentials of being honest by looking like he is stealing from the person he grabbed from, whereas the single witness in non-Jewish wasn’t acting the way things should be done in Jewish court but there is no reason to think he lost his credentials of being a trustworthy honest Jew.