2. Question: In a case where one co-wife says her husband dies and the other says he was murdered, the Shulchan Aruch poskins that since both said he isn’t alive they are allowed to remarry. The Taz (Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 17:47:60) asks why the Shulchan Aruch has to give the reason “that since according to both of them he is not alive they can remarry” for anyways a co-wife is not believed to say the husband is alive and not allow the other to remarry?
A. The Shulchan Aruch right before (si’if 46) says that even
if one co-wife says the husband died and the other says he did not die the one
who says he died can get remarried and the other one cannot because she is just
being strict and forbidding herself to the world.
B. The Taz says the
reason why a co-wife isn’t believed for the other co-wife, just herself, is
because they naturally hate each other so she is willing to forbid herself to
the world just to make her co-wife also forbidden to everyone.
C. One is definitely lying or both.
Answer: Since both are saying he is dead, just in different manners then it definitely looks like they aren’t angry with each other for if they were one of them would say he is still alive therefore the Shulchan Aruch is saying that since at least one of them is lying but it’s not a total lie so we accept their testimony since they both admit he isn’t alive anymore.
you are on the way out of your house why can you say a blessing inside on a
sucking candy for example and then walk out of the house without needing to say
A. The Mishna Berura (178:4:31) elaborates that
there is a difference between bread which “needs a blessing in its
place” where one can technically finish eating in some other house from
where he started or can walk out and come back without needing to make a new
blessing, whereas fruits or drinks need a new blessing once one left his house
where he started eating even if he goes back to it.
B. The Mishna Berura (42) says if they had in mind to have the meal in the place, they said hamotzi and changed their minds to finish on the road, then as long as they can see their original place they can still eat because it’s considered one area. But if they can’t see because they are so far away or because trees blocking then it’s considered changing places and for fruit, you’d have to make a second blessing and for bread technically it’s fine to continue eating but they should ideally say birkas hamazon in the place where they started. However, if they originally had in mind to eat some in their place and the rest in transit then it works even if trees are blocking the way from seeing where they started to eat, because only from house to house does one blessing not work for fruits and one must go back and make a new blessing, and by bread having in mind to eat on the way even ideally works.
Answer: Rav Moshe Feinstein poskins that one only has to make a new blessing when he was originally planning staying at home but if he is on his way out of his house it is as if he blessed on the road and does not need to make a new blessing like any other traveler. This blessing works even for another candy which he might pop into his mouth on the way (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 178:4:42:26).
Question: Why does Rav Shmuel Wasner poskin that one can throw away newspapers that happen to have words of Torah mixed into their articles?
A. The Mishna Berura (154:5:24) quotes the Rambam (lav 65) who says that one who wastes or destroys holy writing transgresses “Don’t do this to Hashem your G-d.”
B. Rav Elyashiv poskins that if you are unsure if there is Torah thoughts in the newspaper then you don’t need to bury it but if you know there is then you should bury it and if you are strict then blessing will come to you.
C. Rav Shmuel Wasner poskins that if there are Torah thoughts within a story then it doesn’t have holiness.
Answer: Because they are not written to learn Torah with them therefore it doesn’t have any holiness (Dirshu footnote 10).
is one allowed to say the chapter of tehillim of “Hashem Ro’i”
after washing but before saying hamotzi but Rav Moshe Feinstein says one cannot
say a “grace before the meal” made up by yourself that asks for
success in all endeavors after washing but before eating?
A. The Mishna Berura (166:1:3) quoting a Zohar
says that one has a mitzvah everyday to pray for his food before he eats and
should do so before washing but if he forgot and first washed then some say
that this prayer or paragraph from tehillim can be said before eating but
better to say it after say blessing of hamotzi and take a bite of bread.
B. Normally the halacha is one should not talk between washing and eating because that constitutes a distraction.
Answer: A prayer on Hashem giving you food is needed as part of the meal so it might not be considered a distraction but a prayer for one’s own success is extra so it’s a distraction and Rav Moshe says if one always says it, it might even constitute the prohibition of adding to the Torah, bal tosif, because one is adding on something on his own accord which the rabbis did not feel a need to do (Dirshu note 4).
2. Question: For allowing a woman to get remarried why is a person reliable even if he only saw the dead guy by the light of a candle or the moon at night but if a non-Jew or Jew would say that they saw a dead guy at night by the light of the candle or moon and he was just speaking masiach lifi tumo he is not believed?
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer
17:22) says that when you look at the body to recognize it in order to testify
about it, one can even check and see it at night by the light if a candle or
the light if the moon.
B. The Pischei Teshuva (91) is in fact in doubt whether a person who while just telling over a story happens to have mentioned (unintentionally), mesiach lifi tumo, happens to say he saw a man killed or dead when he was walking at night, by the light of a candle or the light if the moon.
Answer: If a person is testifying he is trusted to be sure to get a good look at the body. But if he is just telling a story, even though masiach lifi tumo is normally believed but because of the circumstances it was dark maybe he didn’t pay close enough attention and he saw wrong.
1. Question: For allowing a
woman to get remarried why can you testify that a man died if he fell into a
pit of snakes and scorpions but if he fell into a lion’s den you can’t testify
he died unless you saw him die?
A. The Beis Shmuel (Even HaEzer 17:29:91) says
a pit of snakes and scorpions is narrow but a lion’s den is wide.
B. The Beis Shmuel also says that you should not rely on a miracle like what happened to Daniel in the lion’s den.
Answer: Maybe the lions weren’t hungry so they didn’t eat him. But by the snakes and scorpions because of the squishy area and the man is on top of the snakes and scorpions they will bite.
2. Question: Why can’t the view that holds we eat
milk products on Shavuos because the Jews didn’t have checked sharp knives
right after the Torah was given to properly slaughter animals, hold that Hashem
gave us the Torah on Shabbos?
A. The medrish Pirkei
diRebbe Eliezer (46) holds the Torah was given on Shabbos the gemara in Shabbos
86b holds it was given on erev Shabbos.
B. A knife has to be checked for no nicks to be sure there is a smoothe cut by the shechita. As soon as Hashem gave the Torah and obligated us in all the mitzvos at matan Torah which is Shavuos they didn’t have any kosher knives to use that day to slaughter animals, so in commemoration we have a custom to eat milchig on Shavuos.
Answer: If Hashem gave us the Torah on shabbos we couldn’t anyways slaughter because of shabbos so there would be nothing special to commemorate. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 494 footnote 18)
1. Question: Why is one allowed to accept Yom Tov
early on Shavuos, before sunset?
On Shavuos we make it a point to daven maariv and say Kiddush once it is
completely dark in order so that 49 complete days have passed in the omer as
the Torah says should happen before the onset of Shavuos.
B. Rav Nissim Karelitz said that if you take on yom tov early only regarding stopping doing melacha that does not take away from the 49 complete days needed.
Answer: Since that time is still considered the 49th day of the omer, it’s just that it’s forbidden to do melacha because of Tosefes yom tov, therefore it’s not really recognizable that you are impeding on the day rather you are just passively not working (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 494 footnote 2).
2. Question: Why technically if you don’t answer amen
but you just had in mind and the person saying the blessing had you in mind
then it’s as if you said the blessing by any blessing besides if one bentches
gomel upon hearing someone being saved, where the person actually saved must answer
amen to fulfill his obligation of bentching gomel?
The Mishna Berura (8:5:15) says that
if 2 or 3 people are putting on their tallis all at the same time they should
make the blessing all at the same time and if they want one can say it for
everyone and the rest answer amen and even though one should anyways always
answer amen to a blessing, but in this case when they want to fulfill the
obligation themselves then answering amen shows they want to be apart of it, but
technically even if they didn’t answer amen they fulfilled their obligation for
the blessing [by just listening and having in mind.]
B. When bentching gomel for himself a person should say Blessed is Hashem…Who has bestowed every goodness upon me. The Mishna Berura (219:4) says that if someone else said Blessed is Hashem… Who has bestowed every goodness upon you, and you answer amen then it works for yourself.
Answer: Rebbe Akiva Aiger quoted in the Be’ur Halacha (219:4 “vi’ana amen”) says that since the listener cannot say “bestowed goodness upon you” then he cannot fulfill his obligation with the language of that blessing so listening is like answering would not apply and therefore he must answer amen which means he is acknowledging the subject of the blessing and not specifically how it was said.
1. Question: According to the Tur why do children who
say they came back from a funeral have to explain in detail that they were just at
a funeral of so and so and there were eulogies by these people etc. in order
for the wife of the deceased to be allowed to be remarried but if he just said
as testimony that so and so died he is believed without further interrogation
or need to speak innocently, for her to be remarried? What the difference
between the two cases?
A. We believe testimony of almost anyone, even a maidservant
or slave or a child for a woman to get remarried because of the issue if aguna
and she will make sure her husband is dead before actually getting married last
all the fines in chapter 10 of Yevamos will be upon her.
B. Children are prone
to make up stories and playing games like performing a funeral for an ant.
C. When a child reaches the age of 7 or 8 he has enough knowledge to do some level of business and is not considered like an insane person.
Answer: The Taz (Even HaEzer 17:13:9) says that since a child of 7 or 8 is mature enough to do business then he can be relied upon for aguna like any other non-real witness because we aren’t worried he’s insane but when talking about a funeral we are concerned they are making up stories so they have to give more details in order to prove they are telling the truth.