Category: Torah Riddles

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #134

1.    Question: Why can a child technically read from the Torah for everyone else but cannot blow shofar for everyone on Rosh HaShana?

Background:

 A. A person who has a rabbinic (lesser) obligation can’t help perform a mitzvah for someone else who has a Torah (higher) obligation.

B. Shofar is a Torah obligation for an adult. Torah reading is a rabbinic obligation from the prophets which is treated like a Torah level obligation according to the Turei Zahav in Megillah 5b. A child only has a rabbinic obligation in all mitzvos to teach them how to fulfill the mitzvah.

C. A maasah mitzvah, an action of an obligatory mitzvah must be accomplished to fulfill and to help others fulfill the mitzvah of shofar.

 D. The mitzvah of reading from the Torah is for people to hear words of Torah.

Answer: By shofar, since the child isn’t obligated on a Torah level then his action of blowing isn’t considered an obligatory mitzvah action therefore he cannot help others fulfill the mitzvah, since his action isn’t a maasah mitzvah, an action of an obligatory mitzvah. But all that is needed by reading the Torah is for words of Torah to be heard and that is being done whether the child has the same level of obligation as the adult or not, therefore he can read from the Torah and others can fulfill their obligation by listening to him.

Posted on

Torah riddles Test #133

 2.       Question: Why if fruit just ripened as Shabbos came in one cannot eat them even after Shabbos until maaser was taken but if he was eating a cluster of grapes for example and Shabbos came in and he put them down to eat after Shabbos then you can finish eating them after Shabbos and you don’t need to take maaser from them?

Background:

a. Fruits are only obligated in tithing once they are set or designated for a personal use for example if they are brought into the house to be eaten (which excludes selling them) not if they are being noshed on in the field.

b. These cluster of grapes were originally being eaten in the field and did not need to be tithed at the time. But if he would want to continue to eat them on Shabbos then he would have to tithe them (though he can’t on Shabbos) but since he put them down for after Shabbos then when he continues to eat them after Shabbos he is exempt from taking maaser as long as he has not brought them into his house yet.

c. On Shabbos fruit become set because the verse says “and you shall call the Shabbos a delight” where we learn from the verse that we have a mitzvah to eat delicacies on Shabbos. (See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 331:111, 114 and Shach 127, 130)

 Answer: If you would be eating the fruit on Shabbos then you are designating it for a certain purpose, namely the mitzvah of delighting in Shabbos that set it and makes it obligated in tithing even if it is not brought into the house but if you put down the cluster of grapes as Shabbos comes in showing that you are done eating and you don’t want to eat it on Shabbos then Shabbos can’t set it for tithing because you have no intention of eating it on Shabbos and it is still just in the field to nosh on.


Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #132

1.       Question: According to the  Meiri in Rosh HaShana 6b: Why do you transgress only one mitzvah of bal t’acher, being late or delaying doing a mitvah, each day that follows, if you don’t pay your workers on time but if you delay bringing a Korban, a sacrificial offering, then each day you push off bringing the offering you get another prohibition of bal t’acher?

Background:

A. You don’t bring sacrifices at night.

Answer: Once the end of the day comes there is a constant mitzvah to pay your worker which never stops until he is paid so each day he is not paid is part of the same issue of not paying him originally when the mitzvah started but by bringing a sacrifice since it cannot be done at night then the obligation ends at the end of each day and restarts when the next day begins so each day it is not brought is a new prohibition.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #131

2.    Question: What is the difference between a person who delays making a siyum or speeds up learning to make a siyum during the nine days which should not be done as opposed to one who finished a masechta and just left over a couple of lines for a more opportune time to make a siyum which happened to follow out during the nine days or someone ideally learns a masechta which he knows he’ll be finished by the nine days in order to make a siyum during that time?

Background:

A.    The Mishna Berura (551:10:73) says if one sees he’ll be making a siyum soon one shouldn’t hasten or delay it just to be able to eat meat, also if you don’t normally make a feast after a siyum you shouldn’t have one now. However if you are appropriately finishing something then you and even people who did not learn with you can partake in a festive meat meal, even if people are coming and going after you finished the siyum because it increases friendliness.

B.    Rav Chaim Kanievsky tells a story from his father, The Steipler, that during World War 1 they only had meat to eat and guys made a siyum for every meal and everyone in Yeshiva partook in eating meat.

C. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 551:28) said it’s ideal to learn in order to make siyums at this time of the year in order to increase Torah learning.

  Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura (footnote 89) brings the Responsa Minchas Yitzchak that explains when a person hastens or delays his completion of a masechta just to make a siyum during the nine days then he is showing his joy over eating meat not Torah learning which is not nice and not a seudas mitzvah because the main part of the mitzvah is concluding the masechta but when a person finishes something but leaves over a couple of lines for an opportune time to make the feast or if they are trying to make siyums during the nine days in order to increase Torah learning that shows they feel the Torah learning is more important and therefore it’s befitting to have a seudas mitzvah. [/exapnd]
—
Rabbi DS Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #130

1.    Question: Why is a person who accidentally says a bracha on a new fruit, allowed to say shehecheyanu during the 3 weeks but a pregnant woman or sick person who has to eat a new fruit to feel better does not say a shehecheyanu during this time?

Background:

A. Since we diminish our joy during the 3 weeks between 17th of Tammuz and Tisha B’Av one should not put himself into a situation where he would have to say a shehecheyanu.

B. Shehecheyanu was enacted for the joy of eating a new fruit as per The Responsa Hisorirus Teshuva (347).

C. The Mishna Berura (551:17:99) says a pregnant woman and sick person should not say a shehecheyanu.

Answer: See Dirshu Mishna Berura (551:17:99:122) in the name of the Responsa Hisorirus Teshuva (347) that a sick person or pregnant woman is different than one who mistakenly said a blessing on a new fruit since the blessing of shehecheyanu was enacted on the joy of eating a new fruit and if one took a new fruit and said a blessing on it, the reality is he does have a sense of joy right now and therefore he must say a shehecheyanu. On the other hand a sick person or pregnant woman who are only permitted to eat the new fruit because of their sickness or state when everyone else in the world is not eating it, and they themselves don’t really want to eat the fruit now, therefore it must be they are really feeling despondence over the exile and not joy, and that is why they don’t say shehecheyanu.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #129

2.    Question: The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 51) asks: What is the difference between selling an animal that gored before being found guilty and making it ownerless before it was found guilty?

Background:

A. The Tur says if one’s ox gores and then the owner declares it ownerless, he is exempt from paying damages even if he acquires it again before it is found guilty in court.

B. The Tur also says that if one’s ox gores and then he sells it he is liable. Which seemingly means you don’t need to have one owner of the ox in order to be liable (as Rashi holds) but that would mean there is a contradiction between selling and making ownerless.

 C. Even the Tur holds that you need ownership from the goring through the court case without any break.

Answer: By buying and selling there is always someone owning it even while changing hands so the obligation sticks. But when made ownerless even if picked back up by the sane person there is now a break in ownership which causes an exemption. [/exand]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #128

1.    Question: If a bar mitzvah boy who turned 13 Friday night did not develop 2 hairs until Shabbos morning is still obligated to say the night time kiddush during the day then why is an onen, someone who is waiting to bury his dead relative, in this case over Shabbos, exempt from saying havdala after the burial on Sunday according to the Rosh?

Background:

 A: The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 31) says that if the bar mitzvah boy could not say Kiddush for himself on the Shabbos night he is obligated according to the Torah to say kiddush on Shabbos day because the kiddush during the day would not make up for what was skipped rather there is just a Torah level mitzvah to say the night time kiddush at some point during the whole entire Shabbos. (The daytime kiddush we say is rabbinic.)

B. The Rosh brought in the Tur Yoreh Deah 341 says that since an onen was not obligated to do havdala on motzei Shabbos at the beginning of his obligation to say havdala then he is exempt from saying havdala the next day after the burial, for since he was not obligated by the main time of obligation he is not obligated anymore (though havdala technically could be said until Tuesday normally.)

C. The obligation of kiddush comes because of the concept of Shabbos but the obligation of havdala comes because of the separation between Shabbos and weekday.

Answer: The obligation of kiddush is because of the day and the whole day is Shabbos so the bar mitzvah boy is still obligated once he produces his two hairs. But the obligation of havdala is the separation between Shabbos and weekday which is really a moment in time, once it passes and the onen was exempt at the time then he is not obligated any more or get a renewed obligation once he buries his relative. [/exapnd]

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #127

2. Question: Why does the Pri Megadim hold you should first make a blessing on the Tallis then say shehecheyanu but by a new fruit you first say shehecheyanu and then the blessing on the fruit?

Background:

A. The reason why the Tallis is considered important in your eyes to warrant a shehecheyanu is because of the mitzvah.

B. The fruit itself is what causes the need to say a blessing of Ha’etz and the blessing of shehecheyanu.

C. Saying the blessing of Haetz is for the benefit you get and shehecheyanu for the joy you get.

 Answer: Since the mitzvah causes the Tallis to need a shehecheyanu then it’s not fitting to say the blessing on the Tallis then the shehecheyanu but by the fruit since the reason for each blessing is different one for enjoyment and the other for joy and they are both caused by the fruit itself independently then it would be a separation /hefsek between the blessing and eating if shehecheyanu was said in the middle. (Also could say before and not after eating because really the joy starts from when the fruit is seen on the tree, so technically can say shehecheyanu then but we wait until we eat it when the joy intensifies.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #126

1. Question: Why can a kohen wear his priestly garments which has shaatnez in them even when not doing the holy service but the Raavad holds you can’t wear tzitzis which has shaatnez in them at night since there is no obligation at night?

Background:

A. These are examples of a positive mitzvah pushing off a negative mitzvah, in this case the mitzvah of tzitzis or priestly garments pushing off the prohibition of shaatnez/forbidden mixtures.

B. Really when it comes to the priestly garments the Torah didn’t just push off the prohibition of shaatnez but completely permitted it because that’s the only way to perform the service in the Beis hamikdash.

C. You don’t have to wear shaatnez by tzitzis but if you have a linen garment and the techeiles/blue string (when worn) was supposed to be wool then the positive mitzvah of tzitzis pushes off the negative mitzvah of shaatnez.

D. Why does the priestly garments permit the prohibition of shaatnez but the tzitzis only push off the prohibition if shaatnez.

Answer: The Kovetz Ha’aros (40 in new edition) answered that the Raavad holds that since there is no other way to wear the priestly garments while doing the Holy service then the prohibition became permitted even after the service was done and before it took place but by tzitzis you can always wear a linen garment with linen tzitzis so you wouldn’t need to mix wool and linen together. The Torah just permitted you to do so if you wish for the sake of the mitzvah so the mitzvah only pushes off the prohibition so when there is no mitzva, like at night then the prohibition won’t allow you to wear the garment.

Posted on

Torah Riddle Test #125

Question: The Mishna Achrona (Oholos 1:8) asks why in the Michilta it is taught on the verse “when you open a pit or dig a pit” if on the opening you are liable all the more so for digging it, so why need the verse, rather the verse must be teaching us that we don’t exact capital punishment or lashes from logic, it needs a verse. And Tosfos in the first chapter of Bava Kama says that it is obvious that opening is included in digging and still you need a verse. In Gemara Makkos it asks if testimony works with two witnesses then why does the Torah also mention 3? But what’s the question, we hold ein onshin min hadin, you can’t punish based on logic, and we would not enact a death penalty if 3 witnesses testified, for example someone killed someone else but because it is impossible to have 3 without two then obviously they should be able to make someone guilty of a capital crime, so why isn’t this any different then digging and opening a pit where each one needs a verse though once we know one then obviously we know the other?

Background

A. Digging a pit entails opening something which was not there before whereas opening a pit entails opening a hole that was already opened before but currently is covered.

B. 3 witnesses are all separate who just happened to come together to testify about the same thing.

 Answer: Since opening and digging really are two different actions then it makes more sense to say a kal vachomer so therefore a verse is needed to punish but two out of three witnesses are the same as two witnesses therefore it makes more sense to say they are the same thing as that is why the Gemara asked why a verse is needed.