We clarified a few details on Apei Tlasa today.
1. On a footnote at the end of note 4 we discussed that according to the Rambam, the Chofetz Chaim suggests, that it is only permissible to throw into a conversation the lashon hara you heard with at least two other people only if it is known that the person you are telling already know about it. But if he doesn’t know, even if he will eventually know you can’t be the one to reveal it. Then the question is how do you know if everyone knows. There is no set time given and in fact every place is different. You can’t expect word to travel everywhere within an hour in a big city, for example. The Chofetz Chaim concludes that he is anyways not sure if this idea is true because no one else seems to say it has to be known by everyone before repeating it, just that it will be known.
2. In note 5 the Chofetz Chaim points out that the lashon hara he’s been talking about isn’t just flat out insults or degradation but anything that might lead to harm whether financially or physically or embarrassment.
3. In note 6 the Chofetz Chaim dealt with a pressing issue of how the Rashbam seems to permit telling the one who was talked about in front of 3 people what was said about him. Isn’t that flat out rechilus, and can just cause major arguments? The Chofetz Chaim says that granted one cannot purposefully tattle on the person who spoke lashon hara to the one it was spoken about certainly not to divulge who said it, just to start a fight, but since everyone will find out what happens anyways, what was said and who said what then even if it wasn’t within a different conversation, as long as you don’t exaggerate what happened the person who heard the lashon hara among at least three other can repeat it to the one it was spoken about because the Smag who explains the Rashbam throws in that a talebearer is one who reveals secrets not one who says something which everyone knows about already.
Torah Riddles Test #34
- Question: Why do two sets of witnesses combine to testify about what happened in the middle even if they saw it from opposite side windows and the public domain is in the middle but a group of people on either side of a public domain who can even see each other cannot combine for a zimun of Birkas hamazon?
Background:
A. The testimony case is a Mishna in Makkos daf 6b and the question is asked by the Responsa Hilchos Ketanos volume 2 chapter 147 based on a Beis Yosef in Orah Chaim chapter 195 in the name of the R”I.
B. The answer is not like the Aruch Laner who said the case in Makkos is not dealing with a public domain in the middle.
C. What is the “combine” factor that is by testimony but is not there by a zimun?
Answer: By a zimun if the public domain is in between the group they are not considered together and there is nothing to combine them. However by testimony where they in fact come together in court to testify that is considered a form of combining, it is just that in order to be considered one group some of them have to see each other as well when they witness what they are testifying about.
Torah Riddles Test #33
- Question: How can you rely on a posek to poskin if we don’t rely on one witness?
Background:
A. A single witness is not believed against a chazaka/ halachically presumed assumption to testify about something in reality. An example is a person saying a certain animal or bird is of the permitted species even though it has a chazaka of not being from the permitted species.
B. The rabbi who is clarifying an issue (not one which is explicitly verifiable in sources) and using his own reasoning to resolve the issue might decide something which is going against the prevailing chazaka. How can he do that?
C. Why would one person deciding something in halacha against a chazaka be any different than one person testifying about the reality of something against the prevalent chazaka?
Answer: The witness is testifying head on directly against the chazaka therefore he isn’t believed against it. But the rabbi is clarifying an issue which might affect other things in Halacha but also affects this very chazaka so since he is not directly going up against the chazaka he is believed to clarify the Halacha which happens to contradict the chazaka. Or you can say that the witness is trying to make up something new which is against what was originally thought but the rabbi is just uncovering something that was unclear before.
Acharei Mos – Focus
I have many times heard that people wish or feel they should be able to express their love for G-D and worship Him in whatever manner they feel comfortable doing. Where, when, how, and what – on their own terms. Why? Because if they can do it their way, they can show the most optimal dedication, love, and joy that they can possibly feel towards G-D, when they are ready to do it. Why all the restrictions?
An answer to this attitude can be found in the middle of this week’s Torah portion of Acharei Mos, when discussing the prohibition against bringing an offering outside the Mishkan or Beis HaMikdash. The Torah relates: “And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to Aharon and to his sons…Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to Hashem before the Mishkan of Hashem, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood, he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people; in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to Hashem, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to Hashem…And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the demons after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations” (Vayikra 17:1-7).
The Ibn Ezra points out that Aharon and his sons were singled out by this prohibition before everyone else, because at that time the kohanim were for the most part the shochtim, the butcherers, of the Jewish people. The Ibn Ezra also mentions that this mitzvah applies not only in the Mishkan, but for the Beis HaMikdash as well. All sacrifices must be brought to the Beis HaMikdash to be offered to Hashem. The Ibn Ezra also explains in pasuk 5: “in order that the children of Israel should bring” is the reason for this mitzvah, and the explanation of “on the open field” is that it refers to pasuk 7 “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices.” The demons that pasuk 7 speaks about are called “sheidim” in Hebrew but the pasuk refers to them as “seirim,” the Ibn Ezra says it is because they would cause people who see them to tremble or because crazy people would witness them in the form of goats. Indeed, the reason why the Torah says they shall “no longer” slaughter is because the Jews use to in Egypt which is considered straying from Hashem, and the Ibn Ezra says: “Because anyone who seeks them and believes in them strays from Hashem for he thinks that there is something other than Hashem The Honorable and Awesome who can make good or bad.”
The Avi Ezri, a commentary on the Ibn Ezra, says that in pasuk 5 the Ibn Ezra is explaining “that the main reason for this mitzvah is in order so that they will not sacrifice to demons which they were used to doing in Egypt, therefore all offerings shall be brought to the Beis HaMikdash.” He concludes by saying: “And I already explained that there are many open and hidden reasons for the burnt and peace offering and all who know and understand them can give the correct, praiseworthy reason, as long as your intent is for Hashem on High.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
A very bizarre thing is happening here. A person wants to bring a sacrifice to Hashem, showing his love and devotion to Him – but he doesn’t want to, or can’t, shlep all the way to Jerusalem to bring it in the Beis HaMikdash. He would rather do it in his backyard or someplace else. What’s wrong with that? And why would that lead to sacrificing to demons which his ancestors did hundreds of years ago in Egypt, before all the miracles of the Exodus and the giving of the Torah?
It would seem that even though this person has complete devotion to Hashem right now, if he were to continue to sacrifice outside the allotted place of the Mishkan or Beis HaMikdash, then he would revert back to his ancestors’ old ways. How is that possible? Because by requiring the sacrificial service to be in the House of G-D, in a central location Hashem is causing us to focus on what we are doing and on Him. Without that focus it is possible for a person’s mind to go astray or mixed up and decide to do something strange like reverting back to his ancestors’ ways of worshiping demons.
So a person could have all the right reasons for serving Hashem, but if he wants to do it his way and not the way Hashem wants it to be done, then he might lose focus and stray from Hashem.
This does not mean that Judaism is rigid and that there is no room for expressing one’s personality and creativity. Everyone is an individual with their own mind, different means, and unique circumstances. For example, the Torah does not say one can only sacrifice bulls worth one thousand dollars. There is a selection of sacrifices based on one’s means. There is no Jewish law that says one must wear black and white, rather there is a dress code which is based on modesty, looking elegantly conservative. So there is room for creativity as well. There is no one way to make your food on Shabbos or Yom Tov, or what you can eat during the week, rather there are guidelines.
So there is room to express oneself within the framework of Jewish law but it must be done within the framework in order to keep on the Path of Hashem.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2, Halacha 3, most of Note 4
Today we continued in the Sefer Chofetz Chaim. We discussed a very challenging problem. How does word presumed to be spread if it is forbidden to be said? The Chofetz Chaim compared it to a group of thieves that are traveling together. You wouldn’t say that the first person to steal something is innocent because the rest of the group would have stolen it any way! So to the fact that one person of a group of at least 3 happened to have leaked loshon hara amidst a conversation about something else should mean he does not get a sin, as the Rambam says, because bottom line he spoke badly about someone else who care if word spreads. And how then can word spread if no one is allowed to start spreading it?
The Chofetz Chaim explained 3 views of how to resolve this issue:
1. Rashi in Erechin who said that the case of Rabba bar Rav Huna and word spreading is where the original speaker is talking about himself so he is automatically giving permission to spread what he said about himself, good or bad, if he is willing to say it in a group of at least 3 people.
2. The Rashbam in Bava Basra only permits those in the group to go back to the one who was talked about but not say it to any one else. If the speaker was willing to say what he said in a group of at least 3 he must not care if word gets back to the one being talked about. Granted it might start quarrels, but the Chofetz Chaim seems to be saying that is not the repeater’s responsibility, the original speaker is instigating.
3. The Rambam in halacha 5 of Hilchos Deos, chapter 7 says one does not get a sin if he happened to slip into a conversation this pice of lashon hara that he heard in a group of 3, without intent of spreading the news because he is not acting as a peddler, which is what the Torah describes one who speaks lashon hara as. A peddler is one who takes his goods from one place to another sharing or selling them to others but in this case since word will spread or already has spread in an illegal or legal manner, then the person who slips it into his conversation is not acting as a peddler since he is not giving out information which people don’t already have or won’t have easy access to and there is no intent to act as a peddler in this case of spreading the news, therefore he does not get a sin.
Torah Riddles Test #32
Question: Why does the concept of “toch kidei dibur” work to correct oneself if he says the wrong day of the Omer but not if he mentions Shabbos instead of Yom Tov in his shemone esray?
Background:
A. “Toch kidei dibur” is the concept of realizing one made a mistake and immediately correcting himself within a certain short amount of time which is the amount of time it takes for a student to greet his rebbe saying, “Shalom aleichem rebbe umoreh.”
B. The Mishna Berura (Orach Chaim 488:6:32) says “they further write that if one makes a mistake and says ‘today is the fourth day of the omer’ and toch kidei dibur remembers it is the fifth day, it is enough to just finish ‘fifth of the Omer’ and he fulfills the mitzvah even if he didn’t say ‘today is the fifth day’ since it was still within the allotted time of correction.
C. If one on Yom Tov says “mikadesh hashabbos” instead of “mikadesh Yisrael vihazmanim,” the Mishna Berura (487:3) says one must go back and say “mikadesh Yisrael vihazmanim” and it’s not enough just to correct oneself toch kidei dibur and say “Yisrael vihazmanim” after concluding “mikadesh hashabbos.”
D. When Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos we say in our shemone esray “mikadesh hashabbos Yisrael vihazmanim.”
Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that it is not recognizable that you are correcting the mistake you made since that is just what you say on Shabbos Yom Tov but by the Omer it does look like he is correcting himself since one does not count twice in one day. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura there note 68.) [/exapnd]
Torah Riddles Test #31
- Question: Why in England and places similar to it can they rely on the leniency that in 3 days wheat seeds will take root before the counting of the Omer in regards to yoshon?
Background:
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 489:10) says it is forbidden to eat from the new grain even nowadays…until the beginning of the night of the 18th of Nissan, and in Israel until the beginning of the night of the 17th of Nissan. (The Mishna Berura and Beur Halacha there explain at length how people nowadays are lenient in this halacha.)
B. The Mishna Berura in note 44 says that which is forbidden from the new grain to eat is grain that took root after the 16th of Nissan which is when they used to bring the Omer offering. If the grains took root before the Omer, the Omer made them permissible to eat. This mitzvah only applies to the five types of grain, wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats.
C. There is an argument between the Sha”ch and Terumas Hadeshen whether it takes two weeks for these grains to take root or 3 days. (See Shach in Yoreh Deah 293:2 and Nekudas HaKesef there.)
D. The Responsa of the Minchas Yitzchok (Volume 6, chapter 43) says places like England can rely on the Terumas Hadeshen that it takes 3 days for the grain to take root, why?
Answer: It rains a lot in England so roots take root quicker.
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
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.
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.