- Question: Why can a woman ask someone to light Chanukah candles for her if
she forgot and lit Shabbos candles first but she can’t ask someone to make an
eruv tavshilin for her if she forgot and already lit Yom Tov candles?
A. The Mishna Berura
(679:1:1) says, if a woman is lighting Chanukah candles, since the custom is
that we assume she accepts Shabbos as soon as she lights Shabbos candles, then
she won’t be able to light Chanukah candles herself, rather she should ask
someone else to light for her and he will say the first blessing for her but
she can say the second blessing herself.
B. One can’t light fires
C. There was a decree made that one makes an eruv tavshilin as a means to start cooking for the needs of Shabbos before Yom Tov which permits one to prepare food on Yom Tov for the next day of Shabbos as if preparations is being done for everything and you would not transgress the prohibition of preparing on Yom Tov for the next day.
Answer: Once she accepts upon herself Yom Tov by lighting candles then the whole concept of an eruv tavshilin doesn’t apply to her anymore because it only is applicable before Yom Tov starts but by lighting Chanukah candles the only issue is doing a melacha on Shabbos, transgressing Shabbos so someone who has not accepted Shabbos yet can light candles for her. (See Dirshu footnote 4 here.) [/edit]
According to Rav Yaakov Emdan why can challah only be nullified if it
accidentally fell into another batch of dough but not if it fell into the dough
it was taken from?
The Torah requires one to take a piece of dough and give it to the kohen
(nowadays we burn it) if an amount of dough of at least 1660-2250 grams of
flour was made.
B. This dough is holy like teruma and can only be nullified 1 in hundred times the amount of dough it falls into and gets mixed up according to the Rema (Yoreh Deah 323:1).
Answer: Pischay Teshuva (2) says that according to him if the dough falls back into where it was taken all the dough becomes untithed again therefore it is not nullified but if fallen into some other dough it doesn’t affect that dough in anyway so it can be nullified.
What the difference between a safek peter chamor (a kosher animal used to
redeem a donkey but in doubt if can be used) and a safek bechor (a first born
domesticated animal in doubt whether it is a first born)?
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 321:2,3) says that you shouldn’t redeem a donkey
neither with a calf, or a wild animal or with a slaughtered sheep or a sheep
which has a debilitating blemish (Treifa), or with a species illegally mixed
(kilayim) or a koy (rather it should be redeemed with a live sheep or goat and
then given to the kohen). One can’t redeem with a sheep that looks like a
different species but if he did it works. The Rema says that there is an
opinion that if he did redeem with it, it is a doubt whether it works.
The Be’er Heitiv (2) explains the ramifications of it being a doubt that if the
redeemed donkey dies before the redemption creature was given to the kohen the
owner is not obligated to give anything to that kohen for the owner can say
that maybe the redemption didn’t work and if after it was given to the kohen
the redeemed donkey died then the kohen can keep the redemption animal since he
is the assumed owner of the animal now. He is the(muchzak) since the owner
himself gave it to the kohen.
C. The Shulchan Aruch and Rema in siman 315 says that if a kohen grabbed a safek firstborn sheep or even if the owner gave it to him by mistake he must return it to the owner (and we don’t consider him muchzak).
Answer:By the redemption of the donkey there is at least an obligation to give a proper redemption animal to the kohen but a mistake might have been made and the owner thought this would be a good redemption animal therefore the kohen has a right to keep it. But a sheep where there is a doubt whether it is a firstborn there is a doubt whether there is an obligation at all to begin with.
Why is there a difference whether you found excrement on your clothes or on the
bottom of your shoe in terms of saying Holy matters like praying or learning
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 76:2) says that one can place his shoe over a hole which has excrement inside it and recite the Shema as long as there is no smell emanating from there. But if the shoe is touching the excrement it is forbidden to say Shema.
B. The Mishna Berura (5) differentiates between whether you are wearing the shoe or not. If you are not wearing the shoe and it touches the excrement while covering it you can say Shema but if you are wearing the shoe it is worse because now it is your clothing. However the Shulchan Aruch In si’if 4 indicates that if excrement is hidden on another part of the garment it is permissible to say Shema. The Magen Avraham says this is explicitly mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch siman 78 and He also says the difference between a shoe and other articles of clothing is because a shoe is nullified to the body where as other pieces of clothing aren’t. Why?
Answer: The Shulchan Aruch Harav 76:2 answers that the shoe is used by the foot to crush the excrement and the foot is what holding the shoe in place on the excrement therefore it’s as if the foot is touching the excrement. But by other articles of clothing they are not being used to touch the excrement therefore they are considered a covering. This would mean that a glove used on a hand to cover the excrement would be the same as a shoe.
2. Question: In order to have completed a complete repentance so that one can testify again why is it more strict by an eid zomem (false witness) or a butcher that slaughtered and sold treifos blemished animals than one who gambles or sold shmita (sabbatical year) goods or loans with interest?
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 34:30-35) gives ways to repent from sins which invalidate one from being a witness while staying in one’s own place of living when it comes to gambling or selling shmita goods or loans with interest but by slaughtering blemished animals and eidim zomemim the Shulchan Aruch says that part of the process of fixing his bad ways and proving he is honest is leaving his place of living.
Answer: The Be’er Heitiv (43)says we are more strict and make him be in a situation where he is outside of his comfort zone and still does the honest thing at times when he is going to be going back to his old status like being a butcher or an honest witness but when just proving that one dropped his bad ways like gambling, and charging interest all he needs to do is prove it in his own city to be allowed to testify again because he doesn’t have to prove he can earn the previous status he lost he just has to prove he is honest again so we are more lenient in the latter cases to prove his honesty in his place of living.
1. Question: If a person is standing in water without any clothes and wants to make a blessing why is he allowed to put his arms around his waist to separate his heart from his bottom, isn’t he touching unclean normally covered places which also prevent him from making a blessing?
A. There are a number of conditions that have to be met in order to speak or do Holy matters like making blessings: 1. Private parts must be covered. 2. There must be a separation between private parts and one’s heart. 3. One must have clean hands that have not touched normally covered places on one’s body which tend to sweat.
B. The Mishna Berura (74:3:14) gives a solution for one standing in water, for example a woman going to the Mikva who must make a blessing, that is that the water is considered covering her private parts and by clenching her arms around her waist which is not normal to do, that can be used as a separation between her heart and bottom, just like a girdle.
C. Question is why is this allowed if you are not allowed to touch covered areas and the waist is normally covered?
Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (footnote 16 in Dirshu) says that the body can’t be dirty with sweat if you are inside the water so there is no problem of dirty hands if you touch your waste when making the blessing.
- Question: Why does the Be’er Heitiv say it is permissible to throw fruit
at the children during hakafos, dancing on Simchas Torah?
A. The Bachye writes we
should protest throwing fruit at the children. It could be for reasons that it
was a frivolous and wasteful custom.
B. There is a medrish that says Haman told Achashverosh that the Jews had this custom.
Answer: It must be an ancient custom if it goes all the way back to the times of the Purim story therefore it is valid. Now a days people throw candy.