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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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)
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?
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)
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.