Tag: mishmor shaaloh

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #72

  1. Question: Why does the Be’er Heitiv say it is permissible to throw fruit at the children during hakafos, dancing on Simchas Torah?

Background:

A. The Bachye writes we should protest throwing fruit at the children. It could be for reasons that it was a frivolous and wasteful custom.

B. There is a medrish that says Haman told Achashverosh that the Jews had this custom.

Answer: It must be an ancient custom if it goes all the way back to the times of the Purim story therefore it is valid. Now a days people throw candy.

Posted on

Torah Riddle Test #71

  1. Question: In terms of invalidating oneself for testimony as a witness what is the difference between saying “I made a mistake” verses saying “I did it by accident” or “I forgot”?

Background:

  1. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 34:12) says: “If witnesses testify on a man who is assumed to be kosher (and honest) that he leant money with interest, he is not invalidated to be a witness because we assume it was leant in a fashion which would not be prohibitive or he can claim he was mistaken and thought there was no prohibition in charging interest in this manner.”
  2. The Rema earlier (34:5) says “If witnesses come and say he broke his oath, he cannot say it was an accident or I was forced to break it in order to make himself kosher to testify.”
  3. The prohibition of transgressing an oath is known to everyone.
  4. The Be’er Heitiv (14) says he wouldn’t invalidate himself to testify even if he broke Shabbos, for example if a person claimed “I did not know it is an av melacha to tie and untie a permanent knot on Shabbos.” Or he says he forgot it is even Shabbos, even though he was warned from Heaven (when we all received the Torah) about this prohibition.

Answer: Since the sin is well known then he should be more careful once he makes an oath and is not believed to say he forgot about the oath or he mistakenly made it, therefore he is invalid to be a witness about what he saw in order to testify. Whereas if one says he thought it wasn’t forbidden why would he think to be more careful, it came out of the blue, it wasn’t an issue on his radar screen so there is no reason to assume he is a dishonest and therefore invalid witness (see Be’er Heitiv 14 there).

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #70

  1. Question: If you are in doubt whether you said Shema or blew shofar or shook lulav on the first day of the respective Yom Tov, you should perform those mitzvos with their blessing according to some opinions, (See Mishna Berura 67:1:1), which means by Shema the blessings before and after should be said. Why then if a person was only able to hear shofar or shake lulav at bein hashmashos, twilight, or whether a tumtum wears tzitzis or an androgynous gets a bris, in those cases no blessing is made because when in doubt be lenient and don’t say a blessing in doubt?

Background: A. A tumtum is a person who does not have seeable genitalia because it is covered up by extra flesh so there is a doubt of whether the person is male or female. Women aren’t obligated in tzitzis. B. An androgynous is a person with both genitalia which there is also a doubt what gender it is or maybe even a third type of person. Women certainly don’t get a bris. C. Bein hashmashos, or twilight is a time when there is a question whether it is halachically day or night. One cannot fulfill the mitzvos of shofar or lulav at night.

Answer: In cases where we would say a blessing are scenarios where the person is obligated in the mitzvah but is just in doubt whether he did it or not therefore since there is a definite obligation he just isn’t sure whether he fulfilled it or not there is an original assumption that he did not do it yet and still is obligated. A mitzvah fulfilled in doubt does not remove a definite obligation one has. Whereas when a blessing should not be said are in cases where there is a doubt if there is even an obligation at all. (However there is an opinion that by any doubt one should not say a blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah, (See Mishna Berura here in its totality and Dirshu footnote 1.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #69

  1. Question:  Why is saying Shema with the congregation derech eretz, a cordial thing to do even if you are not praying with them but there is an obligation to say Kedusha with the congregation even if you are not praying with them?

 Background: A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 65:2 and Mishna Berura 9) says that if you already read the Shema and you enter the shul and find them reading the Shema you must read the first verse so that you don’t look like as if you don’t want to accept the yoke of Heaven with your friends. This applies to other things that the congregation says together, for example “Ashrei” or “Aleinu,” you should read with them because it is derech eretz, proper manners. B. The Rema (125:2) says there is an obligation to say kedusha with the congregation and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 3:89) says that this is a halachic obligation, not just proper manners. C. There is a set obligation to say the Shema twice a day, once in the morning and once at night. D. The concept of saying Kedusha is to sanctify the name of Hashem within a congregation.

Answer: Since the obligation is to say Shema twice at some point in the day and at night then to say it when everyone else is saying it and you already said it is only proper manners, derech eretz, to not look like you don’t want to accept the yoke of Heaven. But to sanctify Hashem’s name with the congregation potentially really could be even a hundred times a day, there is no limit, therefore every opportunity is a real obligation.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #68

  1. Question: Why can you fulfill the mitzvah of pidyon haben by giving the five coins one coin at a time to the kohen but you can’t fulfill the mitzvah of lulav and esrog by picking up each of the four species one at a time?

Background:

A. Rav Algazi In Bechoros daf 51 says based on a Tosfos in Sukkah 34b which talks about picking up the lulav and esrog to do the mitzvah that Tosfos holds that anything which is one mitzvah cannot be done one after the other even if you had in mind originally to pick up each item one at a time.

B. The main mitzvah that pidyon haben dependent on giving money (to the kohen).

C. The main mitzvah of lulav and esrog is taking them.

Answer: By lulav and esrog all 4 species must be taken if each one was picked up separately you can’t say they add up to taking all of them a daled minim. But as long as the kohen gets his money in the end it doesn’t matter how that happens the mitzvah is fulfilled so you can give each coin one at a time.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #67

  1. Question: Why are you liable for eating on Yom Kippur the forbidden designated amount of food in a scenario where the first half is permissible?

Background:

A. For example if a person is dangerously sick and was told he must eat half an amount of a thick date of food every 9 minutes. If he eats the full date amount he is liable though the first half was permissible for him to eat.

B. A thick date is the amount considered to be enough to compose and settle one’s mind if he is hungry, which is why it is the amount of liability.

C. The Torah says one should cause himself to suffer on Yom Kippur.

D. The Kesser Sofer (responsa 31) says that even if a person ate half a date size right before Yom Kippur and another half right after Yom Kippur started he is still liable.

Answer: Even though he was only not allowed to have half of what he ate but because the combo combined to create a state of composer and settling of the mind it then created a liability since that is the exact issue which the Torah forbade. The exact measurement is just the amount designated which causes composer.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #66

Question: Why would Rav Yisrael Salanter paskin that one can fulfill the mitzvah of lulav upon taking his friend’s lulav from his hands but can’t fulfill the mitzvah if he picked it up before dawn and was holding it after dawn, but rather he has to put it down and pick it up again?

Background:

 A. Rav Yisrael Salanter poskined that if one picked up a lulav before dawn (alos hashachar) and it is still in his hands after dawn he still hasn’t fulfilled his mitzvah because the mitzvah is picking it up (or taking it) and the taking was at a time which one cannot fulfill the mitzvah yet.

B. The Binyan Shlomo (hilchos lulav, siman 48) is initially in doubt whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of lulav upon accepting it from his friend or whether he has to put it down and pick it up again. The question being whether the taking is the mitzvah and upon taking it was not his yet until it is in his hands or whether it being in his hands is the mitzvah and taking it is just the means of it getting into his hands. The Binyan Shlomo decided that even if the mitzvah is taking it one can still fulfill the mitzvah because upon taking it the transference of ownership and mitzvah happened at the same time.

C. Rav Yisrael Salanter does not hold of this logic which comes from a case by a “get” that a slave goes free as soon as he receive his freedom document in his hands though normally whatever a slave picks up automatically belongs to the owner but the logic of “the ‘get’ and the control of his hand come at the same time” prevents the owner from getting it. This logic is that really a slave can take whatever he picks up but it then goes to the owner but in this case the owner is not taking what should automatically come to him because he is showing he doesn’t want it.

D. In the case of the lulav this logic shouldn’t apply because one cannot start taking something which is not his so it is only given to him by the owner after it was taken so how could he fulfill the mitzvah?

E. Rav Yisrael Salanter really holds of a two part system of fulfilling this mitzvah, that the taking in part one of the mitzvah is in order to set up the main mitzvah of holding it.

Answer: Rav Yisrael Salanter really holds that the holding is the mitzvah but the means of holding it is the taking which is a step in the mitzvah so if it was taken before dawn it was not taken in order to fulfill the mitzvah since it was not at the time of the mitzvah but when being given the lulav to have, he is taking it as part of preparing to fulfill the mitzvah and when he has it in his hands and it is now his the main part of the mitzvah can be and is being fulfilled.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #65

  1. Question: Why does the Rambam rely on the majority in this case of Yom Kippur when the doctors say he does not have to fast but in all other life and death situations the rule is we don’t rely on majority?

Background:

A. The Rambam (Hilchos shvisas ishur 2:8) poskins that if some doctors say one has to eat on Yom Kippur because of a life threatening situation and others say he can fast we go by the majority.

 B. The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:20) says if there was an apartment building with 1000 non-Jews and 1 Jew and one of them left the building on Shabbos and went next door to a building that then collapsed . The halacha is we must go through the building to see if the person survived since it might be a Jew even if it means profaning Shabbos.

C. The Gemara in Yoma 84b says we don’t rely on majority in life threatening circumstances.

D. For the sake of the severity of Shabbos one can only break Shabbos if a Jew, who has the potential to keep future Shabboses, is in life threatening danger.

Answer: By the Yom Kippur case the doctors are making a decision if it is a life threatening case or not therefore one must rely on a majority but by the Shabbos there is clear and present danger therefore we are not allowed to rely on a majority.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #62

  1. Question: If two witnesses saw one hair and the other two witnesses saw another hair why don’t they combine to be complete testimony that a boy or girl has come of age but 3 sets of witnesses, one for each year a person has lived on a certain property do combine to prove that someone has the required amount of years needed to assume they are owners of that piece of property?

Background:

 A. The issue mentioned in Choshen Mishpat 30:13 is that a witness can’t testify on a half a matter, only on a whole matter.

 B. Two pubic hairs is a sign of bar or bat mitzvah.

C. 3 years of living or working the land is a chazaka or assumed status of ownership over a piece of land.

Answer: The Be’er Heitiv (24) says that each year is a complete unit by itself. That is all they can testify for that year, so it can be testified about by itself and then combined to equal 3 years of chazaka. But one hair isn’t a unit of measurement at all since both can be seen at once so it is only considered part of the unit of two hairs which is a sign of adulthood and a partial testimony isn’t testimony.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #60

  1. Question: What is the difference between a Kohen contaminating himself with the dead and anyone breaking Shabbos in terms of the concept of “adding on to the count”?

Background:

  1. The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 264) says in the name of Tosfos in Brachos 20a that even though a kohen can be spiritually contaminated by the dead body of his close relative but if there are other dead bodies in that house he cannot get out his relative because burial of a relative only pushes off the prohibition of contact with the dead by a kohen. However Rashi holds that the prohibition being in contact with the dead is totally permitted in terms of taking care of a close relative so even if there are other dead bodies in the room it is permitted.
  2. Tosfos said it is forbidden just like cutting off a branch of figs where only one fig is needed to heal a sick person and three are on the branch so you get a prohibition of breaking Shabbos for the other two figs even though they were all on the same branch. Why is Shabbos any different than contact with the dead by a Kohen according to Rashi?
  3. By Shabbos one is liable for each object one does a forbidden act with.

Answer: By Shabbos even though it is one action of cutting off the branch but because it was for 3 different object then the prohibition is attributed to each object as if you did the prohibition 3 times. But once you are tamei, spiritually unclean, that is that, and there is nothing more to add therefore it would make no difference if he came into contact with one or more dead person, so once it is permitted for one it is permitted for all. Parenthetically if a kohen is already in a state of tamei and then later on before being purified he comes in contact again then he does get another sin it is just that at one time since nothing is added when becoming tamei then once it is permitted for his relative then everything else becomes permitted and it is not considered adding unneeded amounts.