2. Question: Why does the Beis HaLevi hold that a
person who missed a day of the omer can still say it with a blessing for
someone else but someone who is obligated in megilla for Shushan Purim can’t
read it for one who needs to hear megilla on regular purim?
A. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank quoting the Beis HaLevi says that
even though you can’t say a blessing anymore by the omer because you
skipped a day and there is a doubt whether the mitzvah of omer is one big
mitzvah or 49 individual mitzvos so when in doubt you must be lenient and not
say a blessing but there is still a concept of “arvus” that we are
all connected to each other and help each other fulfill a mitzvah properly if
we are both obligated in it therefore he can say a blessing for someone else in
order that they can recite the omer with a blessing.
B. The Kaf HaChaim argues and says omer is like reading the megilla just as a person who lives in Yerushalayim and is obligated in shushan purim can’t read megilla for one who is obligated in regular purim even though they are both obligated in megilla, so to one who can’t say the blessing on the omer anymore for himself can’t say it for others.
Answer: By the omer he is really an oness, it is just out of his control that he can’t fulfill the mitzvah if saying the blessing for the omer because of the doubt but he really is obligated possibly but the Yerushalmi has no obligation whatsoever (unless he decides to obligate himself) in the reading for regular Purim. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 489 footnote 74.)
1. Question: According to Rashi why can’t you teach
your child to count the omer in the daytime if it is too late for them to say
it by night?
A. The Mishna Berura (70:2:9) brings down the view of Rashi
that there is no obligation on the father to teach his child to say krish Shema
by night even at a chinuch age because he is not found by the father, since
it’s too late and the child already went to sleep.
B. This makes sense for nighttime Shema which can only be said by night but the halacha is by the omer if you didn’t say it at night, you should say it without a blessing during the day and it counts so why not do that with your child?
Answer: Since that wasn’t way the mitzvah was ideally set up, to be done during the day then it is improper chinuch to teach it that way and the only proper way to teach it would be to teach him by night with the blessing which is impractical if he goes to sleep. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura volume 5 in back page 41 footnote 9)
can’t Omer be written down to fulfill the mitzvah even according to the view
that writing is like speaking?
A. The Mishna Berura (47:4) brings an argument
by Torah learning whether writing is like speaking or thinking the question
being whether you have to say the blessing for learning Torah before writing
Torah thoughts. On the one hand it’s an action so it’s like speaking on the
other hand he didn’t say anything and the blessing is for speaking in learning.
The Mishna Berura concludes that one should be strict and not say a blessing in
the morning upon writing Torah notes until he is ready to verbalize them.
B. The Aruch Hashulchan says that by Torah learning the purpose of writing is to reveal the thoughts in one’s mind and that is why one opinion says writing is like speaking. Why then would writing the omer be different?
Answer: The mitzvah by omer, krish Shema, and the amida is speaking it out so writing isn’t enough. So if you did it you would have to say the blessing over again and recite the omer verbally. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 489 footnote 43.)
What is the difference between making a mistake by the counting of the omer and
immediately fixing it and making a mistake by the blessing in shemone esray by
yom tov and mixing it up with shabbos and immediately fixing it?
A. The Mishna Berura (489:32) says that if one
said “today is the fourth day of the omer” and then immediately
realize it is the fifth for example he just has to say “the fifth day of
the omer” and not start from the beginning of the statement. B. The Mishna
Berura (487:3) says if a person mistakenly said “mikadesh hashabbos”
in his yom tov shemone esray instead of “mikadesh Yisrael vihazmanim”
he must go back and say “mikadesh Yisrael vihazmanim” and not just
say “Yisrael vihazmanim” immediately, when he realizes his mistake.
C. On a yom tov That falls out on Shabbos we say in our shemone esray “mikadesh hashabbos Yisrael vihazmanim”.
Answer: On Yom Tov it’s not recognizable that you are fixing the mistake if you just say the correct endings soon as you realize your mistake therefore you have to start from the beginning of the statement. But by the omer it’s obvious that you are fixing your mistake because you never count twice. (See Dirshu Mishna 489:32 footnote 68.)
the Noda BiYehuda hold that if a person dies on Pesach and he had not nullified
or gotten rid of his chometz why is the chometz permitted after Pesach if the
Rabbis decreed in general a fine for any chometz in the possession of someone
during Pesach is forever forbidden after Pesach?
A. The Mishna Berura (435:1:3) says that a father does not bequeath
to his children prohibition, however the father owned it in a prohibitive state
at the beginning of Pesach before he died.
B. Hint: When does the fine go into effect?
Answer: The chometz is not forbidden because of the dead father because the fine only ges into effect after Pesach and since he died beforehand the fine wasn’t enacted on him, nor was it enacted on his children since they did not commit any sin. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura there, footnote 7)
1. Question: Why do the poskim say you are allowed to
sell chometz with just money even though there is an argument whether you can
even use money as a means of acquisition with a non-Jew or do you need to
actually have him pick it up or push it, and since this is a money question and
there is a question if money even works then chazaka should say that the food
still belongs to the Jew and he is definitely violating owning chometz on
A. The question of whether acquisition with
money works with a non-Jew can be treated leniently in this case since the
whole question is whether the food can be used after Pesach which is only a
rabbinic issue since chometz left over Pesach is only prohibited after Pesach
as a rabbinic fine. The problem is that this might not even be a question is
the chezkas mamon can answer the question.
B. The gemara in the beginning of Pesachim
says there are two things which don’t belong to a person but the Torah makes it
as if it’s in your possession: Chometz found in your place on Pesach though the
Torah nullifies it and a pit in the street if you undug it or opened it. The
Torah just makes chometz in your possession yours in order to give you a
prohibition of chometz on Pesach but you don’t actually own it.
C. The Pnei Yehoshua views the assumption of ownership for the original owner (chezkas Marie kamma) similar to the original assumed state of prohibition (chazaka dimi’ikara).
Answer: Chazaka dimi’ikara wouldn’t apply in this case because because the chometz is really taken out of your possession by the Torah on Pesach and the question is if it is put back in your possession as a new status, not as the original status or not, therefore we can be lenient and say it was in fact validly sold to the non-Jew and never went into your possession over Pesach.
is it possible to fulfill the mitzvah of matanos li’evyonim when giving it to a
father and son where the son is still dependent on the father?
A. The mitzvah of matanos li’evyonim is two
give money enough for a meal to two people.
B. The Aruch HaShulchan (693:2) says that if you give to a husband and wife or a father and son or daughter who relies on their parents for food it is not considered giving to two poor people, rather to only one poor person.
Answer: The Responsa Hisorirus Teshuva (3:489) says that if you give the father and son on condition that the father has no permission to touch the son’s portion then you fulfill the mitzvah. (Dirshu Mishna Berura back page 134 footnote 13)
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]