Torah Riddles Test #162

1.       Question: Why does the Pnei Yehoshua say that a person who is a mamzer (illegitimate) based on a majority is permitted because he is still only considered a questionable mamzer but though we say that orlah (a tree grown within the past 4 years) outside of Israel is permitted if we are in doubt about how old it is but if there is a majority, we treat the tree as definite orlah?

Background:

a.       The power of majority neither has the ability to make something considered definite nor is it just a doubt in reality since it seems to clarify the matter one way or because the Torah just says we rely on the majority.

b.      The halacha is that only a definite mamzer is forbidden but by orlah the halacha is that anything in doubt is permitted because it is a halacha liMoshe miSinai.

  Answer: By mamzer since the halacha is that a definite mamzer is forbidden and since a majority is not definite, the Pnei Yehoshua holds he is not a definite mamzer and is automatically permitted. But by orlah the halacha is that outside of Israel a doubt is permitted for the halacha liMoshe miSinai says that a doubt is permitted and definite is forbidden, which implies from the language that for the most part orlah in doubt is permissible, therefore since this case is a majority and not a doubt then automatically it is forbidden.

Torah Riddles Test #161

2.       Question: Whether it is on a Torah level or Rabbinic level why is it absolutely permitted to nullify a prohibition by accident though on purpose it is forbidden since either way it is inevitable (psik reisha) that it is nullified and a psik reisha is forbidden even if done without intent?

Background:

A.      The issue with nullifying a prohibition is not taking the prohibition seriously.

 Answer: If not taking the prohibition seriously is the problem then if you nullify it by accident then the problem doesn’t apply even if the results are inevitable since the intent was never to make light of the prohibition.

Torah Riddles Test #160

1.       Question: Why is it forbidden to stoke the coals under the fire of a pot of food that belongs to a non-Jew lest it might have meat and milk mixed in the walls of the pot which you would inadvertently be cooking but you are able to close a chest on Shabbos which might have flies in it and inadvertently trap them on Shabbos which is normally forbidden?

Background:

A.      Rebbe Akiva Aiger on the Rema in Yoreh Deah 87:6 says that though normally doing something without intent is permissible but that’s only if there is a doubt of whether something will go wrong in the future but in this case the doubt of whether there is meat and milk mixed in the walls of the pot is a question of what happened in the past so if the mixture of meat and milk is there then it is inevitable (psik reisha) that a prohibition of cooking meat and milk together would happen.

B.      However, the same holds true for the flies in the chest. If they are there, then it happened already, so it is inevitable that if you lock the chest on Shabbos you will be trapping them, though that is not your intent.

C.      Shabbos requires a meleches machsheves, and act of craftmanship, or thought put into it, in order for it to be prohibited.

Answer: If one does not know whether the flies are really in the chest or not then he is lacking meleches machsheves, so even if it is a psik reisha, inevitable, that if the flies would be there, they would be trapped but since you don’t know if they are there and all you are doing is locking the chest then you really aren’t trapping. But whether you intend to cook milk and meat or not by stoking the coals, it is a psik reisha that forbidden cooking would happen if the prohibition is therefore you can’t do it.

Torah Riddles Test #159

2.    Question: If the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 673:2) says that the lighting if the Chanukah lights is what does the mitzvah then why do you have to relight without a blessing if you blew it out on purpose though you don’t have to relight at all if you blew it out by accident and certainly if it went out itself?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (25) adds that if you lit it in a place which will automatically go out like in a windy area then you should relight it in a proper area (that can potentially allow it to stay lit for 30 minutes.)

B. The Mishna Berura (26) says that even on eve Shabbos if it blew out before sunset you technically still don’t have to relight because the rabbis enacted the mitzvah to be done with a blessing in a fashion that the mitzvah would start before sunset though on all other days it should be lit afterwards.

  Answer: The Avnei Nezer says that since he lit with proper intent then blowing it out by accident, without intent can’t nullify the lighting that was done with proper intent. But when blowing out on purpose and with intent then you are nullifying the act of lighting. Rav Moshe Feinstein explains that since you blew it out on purpose the one seeing that will say it was originally lit for his own personal need, why else would he blow it out. It’s the samething as lighting outside and the bringing the menorah inside where the Mishna Berura (675:1:5) says you don’t fulfill your mitzvah because people will say you lit for your own need, not for the sake if the mitzvah. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 673:3 note 40)

Torah Riddles Test #158

1.    Question: Why can’t the shamash on a menorah which is less than ten tefachim which is about 35 inches from the ground be lower than the rest of the lights?

 Background:

A. The shamash is used to light the Chanukah lights and is the extra candle to benefit from because you can’t get benefit from the Chanukah lights which are set aside to remind us of the miracle.

B. The shamash can be higher, lower, set apart or in front or in back of the rest, anything to show that it’s not part of the mitzvah lights.

 Answer: Below ten tefachim is so low that it’s not really usable as light so it can’t be used as a shamash. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 673:1:20:25)

Torah Riddles Test #157

2.    Question: Why can you open and close the door on Shabbos even if the Chanukah menorah is mounted on it but if you lit your menorah on the table, the table is muktzah and cannot be moved the entire Shabbos?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (277:1:7) says the reason why the door isn’t muktzah is because it’s of great value since it is used for the house and is nullified to the house and not to the candles.

B. By Shabbos candles the Mishna Berura there (si’if katan 18) say that if Twilight (bein hashmashos) there is challahs or other things needed for shabbos on the table and the shabbos candles are also there the table is a base for permitted and forbidden things and can be carried with the candles to a different place if the table is needed elsewhere assuming you can’t push off the muktzah stuff, i.e. the candles.

 C. Rav Elyashiv poskined that even if there is something more valuable which is permissible on the table when the Chanukah candles were lit there going into Shabbos still the table cannot be moved even after the candles go out.

 D. On any night candles cannot be moved until after the mitzvah is done and on shabbos they can’t be moved until after shabbos.

 Answer: The difference between a door and a table is that the door is considered part of the house which is part of the ground which can’t become muktzah but a table is an object which can become muktzah if it was set aside before shabbos to be used for something forbidden so since the table is being used for chanukah candles from before shabbos and is forbidden to be moved because of the Chanukah light then that supersedes even any important permissible thing from permitting the table to be moved on shabbos since the state of muktzah started from before shabbos whereas normally it starts as shabbos comes in.

Torah Riddles Test #156

1.    Question: Why do we differentiate blessings between one vessel and more vessels when dipping them in the mikvah but when lighting Chanukah candles we say the same blessing whether for one candle or more?

Background:

A. The Pri Megadim says we say “lihadlik ner” in singular form for all nights of Chanukah so that we don’t differentiate between the first day and other days of Chanukah.

B. The Mishna Berura (263:22) quotes the Pri Megadim to say that for Shabbos candles we say “lihadlik ner shel Shabbos” no matter how many candles you light because the main obligation is one candle. Technically you only have to light one candle a night on Chanukah too.

C. For dipping vessels into the mikvah you say “al tevilas kli” for one and “al tevilas keilim” for more than one. (Dirshu Mishna Berura 676:1:1:1)

 Answer: By tevilas keilim each vessel is a separate obligation so one should say it in plural for to bless Hashem for each mitzvah you do but by Chanukah each added candle is only beautifying the mitzvah, though that becomes part of the mitzvah but since technically only one candle is needed per night then we stick to singular form for the blessing.

Torah Riddles Test #155

2.       Question: Why on Chanukah is it beautifying the mitzvah by using bigger wax candles but it’s not beautifying the mitzvah when adding more oil into the cup to burn for more than the half hour allotted time for the mitzvah?

Background:

A.      The Mishna Berura (675:2:6) says there is no mitzvah to put in enough oil to last more than a half an hour but with wax candles their is a beautification of the mitzvah when having longer candles but they shouldn’t be too big.

 Answer: The Magen Avraham (there si’if katan 3) says there is an intrinsic beauty to longer candles that makes the mitzvah look nicer but oil is oil no matter how much was put in and once the half an hour is gone one can technically use that oil because it’s not being used for a mitzvah anymore so there is no intrinsic value to more oil. [/exapnd]

Torah Riddles Test #154

1.       Question: How can Tosfos (Kiddushin 16a “Leima Ley”) say that a Jewish slave can go free by his master just declaring him ownerless just like a non-Jewish slave?

Background:

A.      Shmuel holds a non-Jewish slave goes free even by his master just declaring him ownerless. Even according to the opinion that the slave needs a document of freedom that is only to remove his prohibition of marrying a Jewish girl but a Jewish slave can be married to a Jewish girl.

B.      The Pnei Yehoshua’s question on Tosfos is that the way a declaration of ownerless works is that anyone whether rich or poor, man, woman, etc. is able to acquire the ownerless object. Potentially by the non-Jewish slave anyone can really pick him up once ownerless, but practically speaking he acquires himself for freedom, but potentially if he did not want to do so then he can become  slave of someone else. However that does not work by a Jewish slave, once he is free, automatically only he has rights to himself, so he never could potentially be owned by someone else and therefore the rules of hefker, making things ownerless should not work by a Jewish slave?

C.      The Torah doesn’t allow the laws of acquisition, zechiah, to work on a Jewish slave. The temporary owner cannot even sell him to another master.

 Answer: Granted the Torah just doesn’t allow him to be acquired by anyone but that’s just a technicality, the slave himself and the owner potentially had in mind for anyone to take him when the owner declares him ownerless so the laws of hefker can work. Only if the owner limits who is allowed to take what he declares ownerless will the laws of hefker not work.

Torah Riddles Test #153

2. Question: Why does the Tur hold that Yochanan Ochel Challos did not have to divulge as part of his story that his father took him out of yeshiva?

Background:
A. Rebbe Yehuda HaNasi poskined that this person is a kohen based on the innocent story he gave of his childhood when he remembers his father carrying him on his shoulders and dipping him in the mikvah and then going to the threshing floor to collect teruma/tithes from the owners to eat in the evening, and hi friends would stay away from him and call me Yochanan Ochel Challos.
2. Tosfos holds that part of the story in Kesubos 56b was specifically that the father took him out of yeshiva and this was important so that it will rule out the possibility that he wasn’t a non-Jewish slave who can eat Teruma if his master is a kohen, but a non-Jewish slave cannot learn Torah so he wouldn’t be in Yeshiva. The Tur holds that the fact he was taken out of yeshiva was just part of the story but had no significance so he left it out.
C. Female non-slaves don’t get married so any children are out of wedlock and are automatically slaves to her master.

Answer: The Taz (Even HaEzer 2:1:1) says that we probably won’t know who the father is and even if we do the child should be with his master at all times so if he says his father carried him on his shoulders it must be the person talking is Jewish and according to his account that makes him a kohen.