Question: Why does the
prohibition of mechamer only apply to animals but not to slaves?
A. The melacha of Mechamer is the prohibition to command or
lead your animal to do a melacha for you, for example instructing your donkey
to walk while it has packages on it’s back or while a hoe is attached to it and
inevitably the ground will be plowed.
B. There is a positive mitzvah on the owner to rest one’s
animal and slave on Shabbos. The question is why doesn’t the negative mitzvah
also apply for the slave?
C. A slave has free choice but an animal doesn’t, however
when a slave does listen to the master it should be no different than the
D. The Ra”n and Rashba, arguing on the Minchas Chinuch hold that the prohibition of mechamer also applies to an animal which does not belong to you since it is doing a melacha on your command, you caused it to moved and it’s as if you did the melacha. But the Minchas Chinuch holds this only applies to your own animal because the verse says “and your animal”.
Answer: Since a slave has free choice, even though he will do work on the owner’s command but it’s not like the owner itself is doing it, because the slave decides to listen to the command. But by an animal doing work on command of it’s owner or anyone’s command then it’s as if the person himself did the action because he caused the animal to do it without any other outside factors like a decision by the listener, so he transgressed the prohibition.
1. Question: Why would the Har Tzvi say that writing one letter on copy paper/carbon paper which will copy itself on the next page is not considered writing two letters on Shabbos but erasing the bridge on the letter ches, turning it into two zayins is considered writing two letters on shabbos?
A. The Tilale Sadeh hold these two cases are comparable to each other so on the contrary by the ches which the bridge was erased it should not be as bad because you didn’t even write one letter and nevertheless you are liable because we go by the result which was creating two zayins, so all the more so if you wrote one letter and the letter was copied on the next page you should be liable for writing two letter, so why is the Har Tzvi unsure of the comparison?
B. One is only liable for writing on Shabbos if two letters were written.
Answer: Granted by erasing the bridge on the ches which creates two zayins one is liable on shabbos because you don’t have to literally write two letters, if one creates two letters which ever way one is liable because he actually created two zayins which were not there until now, it was just made all at once when the bridge of the ches was erased. But when writing one letter on this copy paper only one letter is really being written it’s just an impression of it is made on the next page, meaning two letters weren’t really written, rather only one was written and imposed on the next page so really only one letter was written so not liable for writing on shabbos. [/exapnd]
2. Question: After Chatzos of Tisha b’av when one
puts on tallis and tefillin, why can you say verses people have a custom of
saying upon putting on tallis and tefillin but one should not say Shema and the
parsha of “kadesh” upon putting on tallis and tefillin?
A. The Mishna Berura (555:1:5) says that by mincha one
should put on tallis and tefillin and say a blessing on them but should not
recite the 3 paragraphs of Shema or the parsha of “kadesh” because at
this point it is like reading Torah, (since the mitzvah of krias shema is in
the morning) and Torah learning is forbidden the entire day of Tisha b’av.
B. In Dirshu footnote 5 in the name of Rav Chaim
Kanievsky, he says one can recite the verses that there is a custom to recite
upon putting on tallis and tefillin.
C. Halacha is normally very strict with wearing tallis and tefillin while saying Shema because they are testimony to belief in Hashem since tallis and tefillin are mentioned in the 3 paragraphs of Shema.
Answer: Because the verses recited upon putting on tallis and tefillin are a custom then it is not considered Torah learning but since the mitzvah of krias Shema has passed by mincha then it’s just considered Torah learning which is forbidden on Tisha b’av and it is only proper to have tallis and tefillin on in the morning when krias Shema is recited and not vice versa, i.e Shema must be recited while wearing tallis and tefillin.
1. Question: If a person took upon himself a
personal fast right after shabbos, that night, why can he say havdala over wine
from plag hamincha and drink the wine but if one would make havdala from that
time when Tisha b’av falls out Motzei shabbos/Sunday then he can’t drink the
wine because he took on the fast?
A. A personal fast is a vow and a vow is based on the
language of how it was said. And how something is said is based on how people
normally say things.
B. The acceptance of the fast of Tisha b’av is dependent on havdala if it falls out on Motzei shabbos.
Answer: When a person says he’s taking on a fast after shabbos he does not considered the, while it is still light, as an acceptance of the fast if he makes havdala for he means to start the fast at actual night but on Tisha b’av as soon as havdala is made the fast starts, so it’s forbidden to drink, even if havdala was made at plag hamincha. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 556:1:2:3)
Question: Why don’t
Yerushalmi citizens tear kriah over seeing the Temple Mount in ruins and taken
over by Muslims, as per Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach?
A. The Mishna Berura (561:2:6) says that upon seeing the ruins of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash one should bow and tear his clothes in mourning and say certain supplications, see there, if one has not been in Yerushalayim or seen the Temple Mount more than thirty days.
Answer: Rav Shlomo Auerbach explains the Yerushalmi custom that because the citizens have the ability to easily go and see the site of the Beis Hamikdash but they don’t then it is apparent they don’t really feel too much pain over the destruction and therefore the custom for them is not to tear even if they do visit the Kosel. This applies to all Yerushalmis even those that live in the new outskirts of Yerushalayim. One can even nullify his vow to tear once he knows it is a valid custom for a Jerusalem citizen not to tear. (See footnote in the back of the Dirshu Mishna Berura, volume 6, page 23 on the bottom.)
doesn’t the chosson break the plate by the tanaaim before a wedding, rather he
only breaks the glass under the chupa, and the mothers of the chosson and kalla
break the plate?
A. The Vilna Gaon says there is specifically a custom for a ceramic
plate to be broken by the tanaaim because there is no foundation in the Torah
for tanaaim to be broken just as ceramic can’t be fixed but a marriage has a
basis in the Torah for being broken if need be, i.e. divorce therefore a glass
is broken under the chupa since a glass can always be forged back together a
new through fire symbolizing there is a halachic way to untie the knot of
marriage, through divorce.
B. The Mishna Berura (560:2:9) says the custom to break these things both by the chupa and by the tanaaim is in order to mourn the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and one should feel joy while still feeling trepidation.
Answer: Since the chosson’s full joy only comes when he completes the marriage under the chupa therefore he only has to break the glass to include mourning at that time and not before by the tanaaim. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura there footnote 20.)
shouldn’t a man send regards to another man’s wife, whether directly, or
through someone else even her own husband but he can ask how she is doing
according to the Bach and the Shai LiMoreh even says that the Bach is telling us it
is proper manners to ask him how his wife is feeling, but he can ask others how
she is feeling as well?
A. The Chelkas Mechokek in Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:6:7) says the reason why one shouldn’t send regards to a married woman even though her husband is obvious is because it shows affection and can lead to increase love and eventually sin.
Answer: Saying hello is showing affection, but asking how she is doing is just showing concern, which some opinions hold might lead to affection, but the Bach holds, it is proper derech eretz manners to be concerned about the health of any person, especially if it is known that someone is sick it makes those that are sick or there family members feel a bit better when they see people share their care and concern for them.
Question: Why is a
decree of men requiring enlisting into the army not as bad as years of famine?
a. When there is a serious drought or famine in a certain area, the Mishna Berura (574:4:9) says that people in that area must act in a way of causing anguish on themselves, for example not having relations with their spouse, decreeing days of prayer and fasting, etc. In fact the Shulchan Aruch there says it is a mitzva to starve oneself in years of famine, and it is forbidden to have relations unless on the night of when your wife comes back from the mikva, or if you are trying to have a child. Anyone who doesn’t care and eats and does what he wants will not see comfort with the congregation.
Answer: Since the government decree is only on part of the people, it does not apply to women and children, then it’s not as severe, whereas a famine applies to everyone therefore everyone must aggrieve. See Dirshu Mishna Berura footnote 7 there.
2. Question: Why is the wife not believed when she says the house or cave filled with smoke and my husband didn’t survive but I miraculously got out but if she says non-Jews or bandits attacked us, my husband was killed, and I was saved she is believed?
Answer: By the smoking house or cave just as she got out miraculously so to her husband might have. But by the bandits, it’s not normal for them to kill women to the extent that we can say just as she was saved maybe he was saved. See Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 17:52, 54.
Question: Why do we
assume the husband is dead if he falls into a pit full of scorpions and snakes
but if he was in a crowd where a whole bunch of snakes and scorpions were
unleashed upon them the wife can’t testify that her husband died to get
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 17:51) says that if snakes
and scorpions were sent into a crowd and a wife said a snake or scorpion bit my
husband and he died. She is not believed because perhaps she assumed her
husband is like most people that die of a bite.
B. The Chelkas Mechokek (105) points out that this is only if the snakes or scorpions were sent amongst mostly people but if it is known that one of the people was bitten and his wife came and said my husband died of a bite she is believed.
Answer: If a person fell into a concentration of snakes and scorpions in a pit, we can assume that he could not avoid stepping on them and he was bitten but if a whole slew of snake and scorpions were sent into a crowd of people it’s possible the husband would not get bitten.