2. Question: According to Rav Moshe Feinstein why can a man who already heard megilla read it for a woman who has not heard megilla yet even according to the opinion that she is not part of arvus, every Jew is responsible for another which is why one can fulfill a mitzvah for someone else even if he already fulfilled the mitzvah himself?
A. The Digul merivivah says that women didn’t accept
responsibility for each other to make sure we accomplish mitzvos, at Har
Gerizim and Har Eival when we received the blessings and curses before
entering the land. According to this opinion a man cannot fulfill a mitzvah for
a woman, like kiddush or megilla, if he already fulfilled the mitzvah himself.
He can’t do the mitzvah again.
B. Reading the megilla publicises the miracle. There is a mitzvah you get when publicizing the miracle.
Answer: In the Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim first part chapter 190) Rav Moshe says that by megilla reading one who already read can help others fulfill the mitzvah even without the concept of arvus since the reading is to publicize the miracle and one who already fulfilled the mitzvah of reading still has a mitzvah to publicize the miracle as much as possible, so he still considered part of the mitzvah and can help others fulfill the mitzvah of reading megilla even if the concept of arvus doesn’t apply to them (See Dirshu Mishna Berura in back page 127, footnote 10).
1. Question: Why does one have to stand with the baal
korei when he is saying the blessings on the megilla for you but he does not
have to stand with the baal tefilla when he is saying the blessing for the omer
A. Rav Dovid Cohen based on the teachings of the Chazon Ish
said that the concept of “listening is like saying” is not just that
he is saying it for you but by listening it’s as if you are saying it yourself.
B. Part of the mitzvah of saying the omer with the blessings
is standing, just as hearing what’s being said is part of the mitzvah.
C. One can technically
sit when reciting and definitely listening to the megilla but should stand when
saying the blessings.
D. The concept of “listening is like saying” (שומע כעונה) applies to the mitzvah that the other is helping you fulfill but, for example people should stand during chazaras hashatz according to the Rema 124:4 out of respect for the blessings the chazzan is reciting when repeating shemone essay out loud and by doing so it’s as if the congregation says it based on “listening is like saying”.
Answer: By the omer since standing is part of the mitzvah so if the chazzan stands for you then you fulfill the mitzvah but by megilla the standing isn’t part of the mitzvah, you can really sit but out of respect for the blessing everyone should stand so it does not help if the one saying the megilla stands for you (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 690 footnote 2).
does an onen who has involved himself in the burial of his relative have to
repeat shema after he buries the dead even if he said it when he wasn’t
supposed to while preparing to bury the dead but if one is in involved in any
other mitzvah like a sofer who must be working when it’s time to say the Shema,
if he does say it even though he is exempt from saying it while involved in
another mitzvah he does not need to repeat Shema when he’s done with this
Shulchan Aruch and Rema (Orach Chaim 38:8) say that those who write Tefillin
and Mezuzos… and anyone who is involved in “the work of Heaven” are exempt from
putting on tefillin the entire day besides by Shema and Shemone Esray. And if
they need to do their job during the time, they should be saying Shema and
Shemone esray then they are exempt from reciting Shema, Shemone esray and
putting on tefillin because any one who is involved in one mitzvah is exempt
from another if it would be hard to do the other one but if you can do both
without any hassles then do both. The Be’ur halacha there adds in the name of
the Ra”n that the Rambam says that even if you can do both you are exempt
because when one is involved in doing Hashem’s work the Torah doesn’t bother
you and obligate you to perform other mitzvos even if you can. However, the
Shaar Hatzion later on (475:39) says that if you do the other mitzvah then you
fulfill that mitzvah since he is a person who is obligated in the mitzvah it is
just that the Torah doesn’t obligate you to perform it at this time and it’s
unlike an insane person if he performs a mitzvah while legally insane, he does
not get credit for performing it.
B. The Mishna Berura (71:3) says that an onen who recites the Shema or hears megillah (see Mishna Berura 696:26) must do it again after the burial. The reason given is out of respect for the dead, so that people won’t say that you don’t care about your dead relative, that he or she died.
Answer: Respect for you dead relative is different than respect for Hashem. Because if you do one of Hashem’s mitzvos while involved in another one you are still respecting Hashem because they are both His mitzvos therefore even though you shouldn’t do it if you do it, you don’t have to repeat it. But doing another mitzvah besides caring for the dead while you are supposed to be caring for the dead is a lack of honor to the dead so it’s as if the mitzvah was not fulfilled and therefore must be done again after the first mitzvah is finished. [/exempt]
Question: Why are you allowed to pass by the entrance of a shul when
there is a minyan in progress and we are not worried you are skipping davening
if there is another entrance into the building but if there are two entrances
on different side of your courtyard you have to light Chanukah candles at both
entrances so people won’t think you don’t light?
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim
90:8) says that it’s forbidden to pass the entrance of a shul on the outside
when the minyan is davening because it looks like you deny Hashem since you
don’t go inside to daven. Then he lists a bunch of exceptions because they are
excuses which prove you aren’t denying Hashem.
B. There is a loss of money when lighting Chanukah candles.
Answer: The Beis Yosef (Tur Orach Chaim 671:8) in his second answer says that since there is a loss of money involved by light Chanukah candles then people will suspect that if you didn’t light on one side maybe you didn’t light at all to save money but by davening where there is no loss of money then people won’t suspect you of anything wrong if there are two entrances.
Question: The Pnei
Yehoshua asked in Bava Kamma 23b: Why are eidim zomimin liable to pay full
damages for testifying that an ox is a muad, a habitual gorer for goring 3
times, even though he has not gored the fourth time yet, but if let say two
witnesses testify that a person has two pubic hairs which means he’s bar
mitzvah and they are found to be eidim zomimin, why wouldn’t they be put to
death since if this kid did a sin deserving of capital punishment, for example
murder, or breaking Shabbos, then he would be put to death since he is bar
mitzvah based on their testimony?
A. Eidim zomimin are false witnesses who are proven wrong by two
other witnesses who say you were with us on that day and so could not have the
ability to testify what you testified. There punishment is what they were
trying to give the defendant.
B. An ox is considered habitual to gore after 3 goring but only
after the fourth one is the ox owner liable to pay full damages, before that he
only has to pay half damages.
C. What is each scenario trying to testify and judge?
Answer: Capital punishment is only the consequences of becoming a bar mitzvah but the testimony was strictly about his status of bar mitzvah so giving them the death penalty won’t be exactly punishing them with what they were trying to do to him. But the witnesses of a muad status was trying to create a status of needing to pay full payments for the animal’s violence so even if it didn’t actually gore a fourth time yet but the witnesses tried getting a status of muad on this animal which is considered as if full damages was sentenced based on their testimony if it happens again so they have to pay for that full damage status.
Question: Why can
one of the witnesses who sign on a get marry the divorced woman later on
in life but two witnesses that sign on a document of sale of a piece of land
can never buy that land?
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 12:1) says that the messenger
who hands a get to the wife, who needs to say, “it was written and
signed in front of me”, also, the single witness who testifies to a woman that
her husband died, can’t marry her because of suspicions that might arouse. But
if they do get married, they don’t have to separate. But if a messenger brings
a get and is not required to say, “it was written and signed in front of
me,” he is permitted to marry her since he’s not marrying her based on his own
words. So too, two witnesses who testify that her husband died, one of them can
marry her because two don’t normally coerce to sin for one. However, the Rema
argues and says that even though it’s technically permitted for one of the two
witnesses to marry her but a ba’al nefesh, one who holds himself to higher
standards should distance himself from this.
B. However, the Taz (2) holds that even a ba’al nefesh can marry her, he just cannot buy the land he had signed with someone else as witnesses of a document of sale since people will say he’s involved in a scam to just acquire that land. What’s the difference?
Answer: The Taz holds that two witnesses can both be involved in coercion over a piece of land since they can both partner in benefiting from it but only one person is allowed to be married to a woman at a time so we wouldn’t expect two people to be involved in coercion over testimony of a wife and therefore even if you normally have higher standards one of the witnesses can marry the widow.
Question: Why does
the Mishna Berura (31:2:7) allow one to take off his tefillin after kedusha of
shachris on Chol Hamoed but does not allow one to take off his Rashi pair and
put on his Rabbeinu Tam pair during chazaras hashatz, after kedusha, (see
A. The Mishna Berura in one place says that on Chol Hamoed tefillin
should be taken off before Hallel and now people have the custom to remove them
after kedusha however you have to be very careful to listen and answer to
B. Elsewhere he says, … and not like those who take off their Rashi tefillin and put on their Rabbeinu Tam tefillin right after kedusha, and in truth besides doing it inappropriately as explained earlier in 25:13 that since Rashi tefillin are the main ones they should only be taken off by Uva litzion, also one has to listen and answer to chazaras hashatz and shouldn’t be involved in anything else.
Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura in footnote 3 of 31:2:7 says that since one needs intent upon putting on tefillin then one will be distracted from chazaras hashatz but when just taking off tefillin one won’t be distracted.
Question: If a
husband had two wives die from childbirth why can he marry another one but if
two sons die from bris milah his third son cannot have a bris?
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 9:2) says that if a man had two
wives die, that does not mean he can’t get married again. Even though if a
woman had two husbands die, she isn’t allowed to remarry a third time because
there is an assumption that she has bad mazel and any man she will marry will
die, as stated in si’if 1 (See Beis Shmuel 9:1:1 there).
B. The father is “blamed” for the deaths of his sons and once two died we assume the third will die as well from circumcision.
Answer: We can assume that the father gave his sons “weak genes” so that they physically can’t handle the bris but that would not affect his wives as the Beis Shmuel says in si’if katan 7.
does a lack of kavanah for making the tzitzis for the sake of the mitzvah a
problem as soon as the strings are put into the hole but this concept of making
it properly in order and not out of order and just falling into place is only
an issue once you start tying the strings, especially if they are learned out
of the same verse?
A. An example of out of order would be folding and pushing
through one big string through the hole then cutting it into 8 strings so that
they can be tied.
B. Another example is tying the strings before the corners were made into real corners instead of rounded.
Answer: The mitzvah process starts as soon as the strings start going through the hole so you need proper intent but you didn’t actually start making something until you start tying so have a bit more time to get it into the right order.
According to the Levush what is the difference whether one corner of tzitzis
broke and you only have to retie that corner, but if one corner was tied when
the corners were rounded and then all four corners were made pointed and the
rest of the corners were tied properly, you still have to redo all of them
A. There is a concept by tzitzis that they must
be made in the right order, not that everything is done and automatically the
mitzvah falls into place once it is all sorted.
B. Example of the wrong way is tying tzitzis on
a three-corner garment then cutting a fourth corner and tying it.
You have to retie all four corners because the four corners must be there first then tie
Magen Avraham questioned why the 3-corner case was a problem since the other corners
were tied properly why should all the tzitzis be invalid since one was?
Furthermore, the Machatzis Hashekel asks why it is no different than one
tzitzis breaking, why isn’t it that the tzitzis on the other 3 corners are also
invalidated and they all would have to be retied?
D. The Levush does say that all the tzitzis
strings were made in an invalid state and stayed invalid because it was
automatically set not made right, from the start.
E. The tallis is part of the mitzvah of tzitzis because the tallis and tzitzis become one piece of clothing.
Answer: Once one corner was made out of order then the whole garment is invalidated even if the other three tzitzis strings were tied after the fourth corner was cut out so all of them have to be redone but if all strings were tied properly on a kosher garment and then one string broke that does not mean all four have to be restrung because the garment is still valid, only the one string broke so only that one must be fixed.