Why do two sets of witnesses combine to testify about what happened in the
middle even if they saw it from opposite side windows and the public domain is
in the middle but a group of people on either side of a public domain who can
even see each other cannot combine for a zimun of Birkas hamazon?
A. The testimony case is a Mishna in Makkos
daf 6b and the question is asked by the Responsa Hilchos Ketanos volume 2
chapter 147 based on a Beis Yosef in Orah Chaim chapter 195 in the name of the
B. The answer is not like the Aruch
Laner who said the case in Makkos is not dealing with a public domain in the
C. What is the “combine” factor that is by testimony but is not there by a zimun?
Answer: By a zimun if the public domain is in between the group they are not considered together and there is nothing to combine them. However by testimony where they in fact come together in court to testify that is considered a form of combining, it is just that in order to be considered one group some of them have to see each other as well when they witness what they are testifying about.
How can you rely on a posek to poskin if we don’t rely on one witness?
A. A single witness is not believed against a
chazaka/ halachically presumed assumption to testify about something in
reality. An example is a person saying a certain animal or bird is of the
permitted species even though it has a chazaka of not being from the permitted
B. The rabbi who is clarifying an issue (not
one which is explicitly verifiable in sources) and using his own reasoning to
resolve the issue might decide something which is going against the prevailing
chazaka. How can he do that?
C. Why would one person deciding something in halacha against a chazaka be any different than one person testifying about the reality of something against the prevalent chazaka?
Answer: The witness is testifying head on directly against the chazaka therefore he isn’t believed against it. But the rabbi is clarifying an issue which might affect other things in Halacha but also affects this very chazaka so since he is not directly going up against the chazaka he is believed to clarify the Halacha which happens to contradict the chazaka. Or you can say that the witness is trying to make up something new which is against what was originally thought but the rabbi is just uncovering something that was unclear before.
Question: Why does the concept of “toch kidei dibur” work to correct
oneself if he says the wrong day of the Omer but not if he mentions Shabbos
instead of Yom Tov in his shemone esray?
A. “Toch kidei dibur” is the concept of
realizing one made a mistake and immediately correcting himself within a
certain short amount of time which is the amount of time it takes for a student
to greet his rebbe saying, “Shalom aleichem rebbe umoreh.”
Mishna Berura (Orach Chaim 488:6:32) says “they further write that if one makes
a mistake and says ‘today is the fourth day of the omer’ and toch kidei dibur
remembers it is the fifth day, it is enough to just finish ‘fifth of the Omer’
and he fulfills the mitzvah even if he didn’t say ‘today is the fifth day’
since it was still within the allotted time of correction.
C. If one
on Yom Tov says “mikadesh hashabbos” instead of “mikadesh Yisrael vihazmanim,”
the Mishna Berura (487:3) says one must go back and say “mikadesh Yisrael
vihazmanim” and it’s not enough just to correct oneself toch kidei dibur and
say “Yisrael vihazmanim” after concluding “mikadesh hashabbos.”
D. When Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos we say in our shemone esray “mikadesh hashabbos Yisrael vihazmanim.”
Answer: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that it is not recognizable that you are correcting the mistake you made since that is just what you say on Shabbos Yom Tov but by the Omer it does look like he is correcting himself since one does not count twice in one day. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura there note 68.) [/exapnd]
Why does one make a blessing of “al biur chometz” at the time of burning when
he found chometz on Yom Tov but before Pesach we say the blessing by the
checking, bedikas chometz?
Magen HaAlef (2) poskins that if one realizes on Yom Tov that he did not check
for chometz before Pesach then he should check for chometz and cover it if he
finds any because it is muktzah on Yom Tov and then on chol hamoed he should
burn it with a blessing.
B.Normally we say the blessing and check for
chometz the night before the eve of Pesach, then burn it in the morning, which
is the proper time to burn the chometz, before chatzos, noonish. By chatzos all
chometz is forbidden and automatically made ownerless by the Torah if you have
not done it yourself by then.
normal circumstances the checking at night is considered the beginning of the
mitzvah of burning and that is why the blessing is said then.
D. In both cases the checking and burning are on different days so why is the blessing said at different times?
Answer: As long as the time for burning hadn’t come yet then the checking is considered the beginning of the process of burning but once the time of burning already past and you found chometz on Yom Tov but you can’t just burn it until chol hamoed then the checking isn’t considered the beginning of the mitzvah since the time you burn has already past, so finding it is just one action and burning it is another action which just couldn’t be done earlier since it was muktzah. (See footnote 4 in Dirshu Mishna Berura 435:1:3)
Why do we apply the rule of “Trei mashehu lo amrinan” that little bits don’t
transfer twice when it comes to foods but not when it comes to vessels like a
A. The Mishna Berura (467:9:37) says, If a
ladle stirred soup that had a cracked kernel of barley found inside it on
Pesach while piping hot then you use the ladle to stir another boiling hot pot
it ruins all the food in the pot and the pot because since it can prohibit with
even a little bit then we assume even that little bit of taste went out of the
spoon and into the next pot of soup.
B. The Shaar Hatzion (67) says this
only applies by a spoon transferring from liquid to liquid but if that cracked
barley kernel fell on a piece of hot meat and then that hot meat got mixed up
with other hot solid foods like vegetables and there is a majority to nullify
its taste, then as long as you can see and take out that solid piece of meat
which had the chometz absorbed in it, then everything else is permitted at
least to get benefit from and even to eat if not eating it would detract from
the joy of Yom Tov.
C. The Taz (17) asks why the rule that little bits of taste don’t transfer twice apply to the spoon mixing two pots of soup just as it applies to the food.
D. Food has their own tastes absorbed in it but spoons don’t have their own tastes absorbed in them.
Answer: The Dirshu Mishna Berura note 41 quotes the Elya Rabba (447:1) saying that a little bit [of taste] absorbed in a spoon is different from a little bit absorbed in a solid food substance, for when it is absorbed in food the [foreign taste] clings to it and does not get spit out again from it and therefore we can apply the rule of “trei mashehu lo amrinan” but when absorbed in a spoon, since the spoon does not have its own taste, then the [chometz taste that was absorbed] does not cling to it so it then gets spit out into the other pot [the spoon was mixing.]
- Question: Why would you say both the paragraphs for Shabbos and Rosh
Chodesh In benching at seuda shlishit if you bentched by night fall of a
Shabbos where Rosh Chodesh starts that night but if Purim is on Friday and your
Purim seuda runs into Shabbos then you only say the paragraph of Shabbos and
not Purim in bentching?
A. The Mishna Berura in 188:33 says the reason
you say both by a Shabbos leading into Rosh Chodesh is because the paragraph
for Shabbos is going on the beginning of the meal then we say the paragraph of
Rosh Chodesh (or Yom Tov) afterwards which goes on the second half of the meal.
However according to that logic you should say both paragraphs when Purim goes
B. There is a rabbinic concept called Tosefes Shabbos, adding on to the Shabbos before and after.
Answer: On Shabbos going into Rosh Chodesh there is actually additional minutes going into Rosh Chodesh so can say that when bentching it was for one half of the meal and then for the other half because Shabbos could have been pushed off longer to when they were ready to bentch and then it leads into Rosh Chodesh but once nightfall comes Purim is done and over, even if the meal started during the day so when bentching it is only Shabbos therefore only the paragraph of Shabbos is said. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura note 32 in 695:3:15.)
- Question: Why isn’t a Megillah muktzah, according to the Pri Megadim
and Elya Rabba, if Shushan Purim falls out on Shabbos just as a lulav and esrog
on Shabbos Sukkos or a shofar on Shabbos Rosh HaShana?
The Mishna Berura (688:6:15) explains the reason why they don’t read Megillah
on Shabbos of Purim mishulash is because the Rabbis decreed not to lest someone
will go to a sage to learn how to read it and will walk four amos in the public
B. The Pri Chodosh argues and says a Megillah is muktzah on the Shabbos of Shushan Purim (mishulash) because since one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Megillah on that day then he takes his mind away from using it and makes it muktzah in his eyes.
Answer: It is a Sefer, or scroll which people can learn from, so just like any other time of the year one can use it even in Shabbos so to on this Shabbos as well it is not muktzah and could be used if you want to look something up or learn from it. But a shofar is an instrument and a lulav has no use besides for the mitzvah so they are muktzah on Shabbos.
- Question: If a person sells an ox to his friend and it is
found to be a treifa why is it a faulty sale (mekach ta’us), maybe it will
live, who cares if most of them will die, there is a halachic rule that we
don’t go by the majority when it comes to monetary cases?
The answer is not like the Hafla’ah said in Kesubos 15b that once we rely on a majority to answer a prohibition question then we can use that majority to answer a monetary question, meaning because the majority will say whether it is kosher or not it can now poskin whether it is a mekach ta’us (faulty sale). The reason why this answer does not hold up is because many halachic authorities disagree with it.
The halacha of mekach ta’us (faulty sales) is dependent on the will or mindset of a person
Answer: We can assume that a person does not want or agree to buy an animal which is now a treifa since most of the time it will die and only the minority will stay alive.