Torah Riddles Test #172

1.    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?

Background:

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.

Torah Riddles Test #171

2.       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?

Background:

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.

Torah Riddles Test #170

1.       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?

Background:

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.

Torah Riddles Test #169

2.       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 34:2:14)?

Background:

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 chazaras hashatz.

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.

Torah Riddles Test #168

1.       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?

Background:

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.

Torah Riddles Test #167

2.    Question: Why 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?

Background:

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.

Torah Riddles Test #166

1.    Question: 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 again?

Background:

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 them all.

 C. The 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.

Torah Riddles Test #165

2. Question: Why does the Beis Shmuel say that a kohen can live in the same house as his ex-wife who he found to be adulterous one day and divorced but can’t even live in the same courtyard as his ex-wife, without their children constantly with them, who was captured by non-Jews and he was forced to divorce?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:9) says that a wife of a kohen who became forbidden to him because she was captured, since the matter is really in question whether she was forced to have relations with one of her capturers he is permitted to live in the same courtyard as her as long as their children and household are always there to make sure they don’t do anything inappropriate.

Answer: The Beis Shmuel (16) says that since the husband is disgusted by his adulterous wife then we aren’t afraid he will go back to her but the wife of a kohen who was captured did nothing wrong, she just might have been forced to be with her captors which prohibits him to her because he has a special status of a kohen therefore we are worried that if they are alone together for a period of time they will be with each other because they still have feelings for each other and she is not disgusting in his eyes.

Torah Riddles Test #164

1.    Question: The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 32) asks why are partners liable for working their animal on Shabbos if the Torah says your (singular) animal shall not be worked on Shabbos?

Background:

 A. By Teruma it says your (singular) grain which the gemara in Chullin 135b says that one is only obligated in the mitzvah of teruma if you own the grain by yourself not with partners. So to by tzitzis it says your (singular) garment is obligated in tzitzis, only if it belongs to one person not if the garment belongs to two partners.

 B. The Sforno (Shemos 23:12) says the reason why the verse mentions resting your ox and donkey in the same verse as your maidservant and the convert is because when the animals rest then your maidservant and the convert will get to rest as well.

Answer: Even though the verse sounds like you have to own the whole animal but in logic it is not true because working your animal will come to people themselves working so all animals must rest including if co-owned with a Non-Jew. But this problem doesn’t apply to teruma, tzitzis, peach, or lulav therefore they can’t be owned by partners because the verse indicates they have to be owned by one person.

Torah Riddles Test #163

2.       Question: The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:1) says that if a kohen marries a safek chalutza he does not have to divorce her. Why is she any better than a woman who was only given a divorce paper as a chumra (acting strictly) though there was only a rumor that she was even married to a previous guy who she was arranged to marry, even though it is evident that she was not really married, she is still forbidden now to marry a kohen, one is an actual doubt where there might be rabbinic prohibition but still permitted and the other is totally permissible but is forbidden?!

Background:

a.       A safek chalutza is a woman who is in doubt whether she needs to perform the act of chalitza to her brother-in-law after her husband died and the child she gave birth to died within thirty days of birth so there is a doubt if he would have lived or not.

b.       A kohen cannot marry a divorced woman and is forbidden to a chalutza on a rabbinic level because it looks like a divorce, so when in doubt rabbinically we are lenient, however if nothing really happened and the divorce is just a chumra then certainly a kohen should be able to marry her?!

 Answer: It’s all based on rumors. People will say the kohen married a safek chalutza therefore it is permitted because we are lenient when in doubt. But by the get lichumra people will say she was really married previously and this is actually a real divorce so the kohen should not be marrying her in order not to look like he is doing something wrong. Similarly in the next si’if it says that a girl before the age of 12 who was married off by her mother or siblings because her father died and she annulled her marriage before she was 12, can still marry a kohen when she gets older because people will say she did mi’un not divorce even if he did divorce her and she did mi’un afterwards then people will say she did mi’un and the marriage and divorce never counted.