Tag: mishmor shaaloh

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #59

  1. Question: Why isn’t it an issue of being forced into a situation of making an unneeded blessing (bracha she’eino tzricha) in terms of washing in the morning or by tefillin but there is an issue of making an unneeded blessing by tzitzis?

Background:

  1. The Mishna Berura (4:13:30) says if one was up all night, for example on Shavuos, or even if he got up before alos hashachar (dawn) and washed his hands(see Mishna Berura 33), then there is a question whether he has to wash his hands in the morning and make a blessing, based on the question in halacha of why we wash, is it because of touching impure places while sleeping, sleeping itself, or just the nighttime which brings a bad spirit onto one’s hands. In any event the suggested practice is to go to the bathroom and then everyone agrees that he would be obligated to make a blessing after washing for washing his hands and going to the bathroom.
  2. The Beur Halacha (25:5 “vitov”) explains the reason why this is fine is because since one is forced to do this because of the doubt it is does not fall into the category of an unneeded blessing. Similarly by tefillin there is a question whether a blessing is needed by the tefillin shel rosh or whether it counts with the blessing over the tefillin shel yad. The Shulchan Aruch and the Vilna Gaon both agree like the view of Rashi that one only makes one blessing for both but the Rema says two blessings should be said like the view of the Rosh. Rebbe Akiva Aiger suggests that one should have in mind to not use the first blessing on the arm tefillin for the head tefillin in order so that he is forced to make the second blessing just in case the halacha is like Rashi that the blessing on the hand tefillin can also count for the head and this is not considered making an unneeded blessing because one is forced to do this to get out of the doubt of who we poskin like.
  3. However the Mishna Berura (8:16:42) says that if one slept in his tzitzis the entire night there is a question whether he can make a blessing on the tzitzis in the morning since there is a doubt whether there is a mitzvah of tzitzis at night or just that pajamas are exempt from tzitzis but day garments are still obligated even at night therefore the Mishna Berura says safek brachos lihakel (when in doubt by a blessing one should be lenient and not say it) however he can have in mind for the tzitzis when making a blessing on his tallis. He then says that this is as long as he doesn’t take it off but if he takes off the tzitzis with having no intention of putting it back on immediately then he would need a new blessing according to everyone but one shouldn’t do this on purpose to create a situation of an unneeded blessing.

Answer: . By washing one is just doing something which he would have to do at some point anyways so he isn’t doing anything extra to force himself to make an unneeded blessing and by tefillin too, the Beur Halacha says that having in mind to not use the blessing on the arm is like talking in the middles of doing the mitzvah which warrants a new blessing so there isn’t a superfluous step which forces a need of a new blessing. But by tzitzis, the garment is already on, and there is no need to take it off, it is totally extra and repetitive so going through the motions of taking it off just to put it on again is more like a loop hole which just creates an unneeded blessing.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #58

1.     Question: Why would tefillin that a child wrote be invalid because since he can’t put on tefillin yet the Torah says he can’t write them either but if a child shechts an animal it is kosher on a Torah level? 
Background: 
A. The Achiezer (3:82:12) pointed out that Tefillin is a new obligation everyday but the prohibition of eating a carcass which obligates one to shecht properly is one obligation per animal that can last for a long time, even after the child grows up. 
B. By tefillin the sofer makes the tefillin kosher by following all the halachas of making tefillin. But by kosher meat the shechting isn’t what makes it kosher, it is the Torah permitting the animal and the shochet is just doing the action of shechting.

Answer: 

A2a. A child isn’t able to put on tefillin today so he can’t be a scribe for that mitzvah which is renewed every day but a child who shechted has ramification for the future since the meat can be eaten after he is bar mitzvah therefore the slaughtering is a good slaughtering since the same mitzvah can be used for when he is bar mitzvah. 
A2b. By tefillin since the whole mitzvah is dependent on the person than if the scribe is a child then the mitzvah was not created since he is obligated in mitvos yet but since the Torah is what makes the animal kosher and the slaughtering is just an act to allow the Torah to make the meat kosher then it makes no difference if a child did it as long as it was done kosherly.
Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #57

  1. Question: Why if 2 or 3 people are putting on their Tallis at the same time they can each make their own blessing but if they would bring a havdala candle into the Beis Medrish or shul then one should say a blessing over the candle for everyone for havdala because b’rov am hadras melech, the more people doing something together is a greater honor to the King?

Background:

A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 8) says that if 2 or 3 people are putting on their Tallis at the same time all of them should make their own blessing and if they want one of them can make the blessing for them and the rest just answer amen.

B. The Gemara in Brachos 53a brings a case of people sitting in the Beis Medrish and a candle is brought before them. Beis Shammai poskins that each one should make their own blessing in order not to disturb the learning in the Beis Medrish and Beis Hillel poskins that one person should make a blessing for everyone because of b’rov am hadras Melech. We poskin like Beis Hillel as the Shulchan Aruch himself says in 298:14.

C. The concept of b’rov am hadras Melech applies when people do things all together like when one person blows shofar or reads Megillah and everyone else is listening.

Answer: This concept applies when people are doing the same thing all together like in the case of the candle saying a blessing on one havdala candle but not when each person is doing their own thing even if it is the same kind of thing all at once like by a group of people, each one putting on their own Tallis all at once.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #56

1.  Question: Why does the borrower have to pay $200 and not $100 or $300 in the following case? 
Background: 
A. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 30:3) brings a case of Reuvain who claims Shimon owes him $1500. He has five witnesses, one says he borrowed $100 another said $200, another said $300, another says $400 and the last one said he borrowed $500. If they all claim the loan took place on the same day but with different amounts Shimon only owes $200 because if you are trying to extract money from someone you have to bring proof. (Hamotzi mechavero alav hara’aya.) 
B. The Sm”a (17) says the number $200 is based on the fact that there are two witnesses who said he owes no more than $200 even though there are 3 witnesses that say he owes at least $300. 
C. There is a rule in Shas that two witnesses and even 100 witnesses are all the same, meaning more witnesses on one side does not create a majority to beat out witnesses on the other side if there are at least 2.
 D. There is a logic in Shas that within $200 is $100. (Bichlal masayim manah.)

Answer: They certainly don’t pay no more than 200 because the 3 witnesses who say he should pay more are no better than the ones who say they owe the most 200 and they also admit he at least owes $200. Shimon won’t only owe $100 because the one who says he borrowed $100 could add up and combine with the other to $200, though not more than that because the $200 witness only said he owes no more than $200.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #55

  1. Question: Why are those listening to the bracha seem to be more lenient in terms of if they spoke before eating then one who actually said the blessing?

Background:

A. The Rema (Orach Chaim 167:6) says that when one speaks unneeded words before they take a bite they have to make a new blessing, is only if they spoke before the one who said the blessing for them took a bite, but if they spoke after he took a bite it is not considered a separation between the blessing and them eating even though they didn’t eat yet, but they all fulfilled their obligation with the blesser eating his piece. Not everyone needs to eat from the bread he said the blessing they just do that to show a love for the mitzvah.

B. The Magen Avrohom and Taz both ask how it is possible that the listeners are better than the blesser, for by the blesser we say that if he talks before he takes a bite he has to say a new blessing because he made a separation between the blessing and eating. But by the listeners even if they make a separation between the blessing and eating they don’t need to make another blessing?

C. The commentaries’ question is based on the assumption that the concept of “listening is like answering” means that it is as if the listener said the blessing.

D. The Rema seems to hold that the explanation of “listening is like answering” is that really only the blesser is blessing but the blessing counts for those listening as well by just listening.

Answer:Once the blesser eats the blessing is put into play for everyone and really nothing more has to be done for everyone to eat so the ones listening can’t ruin it but as long as the blesser didn’t eat yet then the blessing doesn’t work so if he says something in between the blessing doesn’t connect to the food for anyone. (Whereas if you would say that it is as if each person makes the blessing then the blessing actually wouldn’t go into play and work until everyone ate without interruption.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #53

  1. Questions: The Beis HaLevi on the Torah in his section on Chanukah says one has to light a menorah at each of his entrances if he has more than one, so that people won’t suspect him of not lighting. According to the opinion that one does not have to relight his menorah if it blew out within a half an hour, why wouldn’t the same concern apply that people will think he did not light Chanukah candles?

Background:

A. There is an argument between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda in the gemara whether one has to relight the candles if they blew out within the half hour required time limit or since they potentially had the ability to stay lit for that long the mitzvah is fulfilled.

B. The concern of why one has to light in two entrances is a מראית עין issue.

Answer: By the case of two entrances there is really an obligation on the home owner to light in two places from the start because of this concern. But in the case where the light blew out he technically fulfilled his mitzvah already so we won’t force him to be obligated again just because of a concern that just popped up.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #50

  1. Question: Why should the sheliach tzibur not say his silent devotion when a minor holding a sefer Torah makes up the tenth man of the minyan and he only recites the repetition out loud?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura (55:4:24) Brings a view that in emergency purposes one can use one child below bar mitzvah to make a minyan for barchu, kaddish, and kedusha. But not Mourners Kaddish for after Aleinu. He brings down that now a days they used this leniency if the child is holding a sefer Torah but he says many later poskim are stringent even for emergency purposes.

B. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim volume 2, chapter 18) ruled that if one does use this leniency the one leading the service should not say the Shemone esray twice, once to himself and once out loud.

Answer: In order to avoid saying brachos levatala, unneeded blessings, according to the view that this leniency does not work. So he just says the shemone esray once which counts for his personal obligation as well.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #49

  1. Question: Why does a condition work to not accept upon yourself Shabbos if you light candles early but if you daven maariv early a condition does not work?

Background:

  1. The Mishna Berura (263:11:50) says that even if the congregation did not daven maariv yet, if an individual davened maariv for Shabbos, while still day out, he has accepted upon himself Shabbos and is forbidden to do Melacha, even if he says he did not want to accept Shabbos upon himself yet. And though by candle lighting some say a condition does work, as seen in si’if 10, but davening shemone esray is different since you mentioned the sanctity of Shabbos.
  2. The bracha you make on lighting Shabbos candles is “Blessed are you…who commanded us to light the candle for Shabbos.”
  3. The blessing during the Shemone Esray of Shabbos is “Blessed are you…for sanctifying the Shabbos.”

Answer: . In davening you are proclaiming that Shabbos should start by saying that Shabbos is holy and not mundane whereas lighting candles is just a candle which just happens to be used for Shabbos sake but that can be when Shabbos starts at sundown, the blessing doesn’t have any innuendo triggering Shabbos to start.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #48

  1. Question: Why is there a difference between the prohibitions of don’t steal and don’t covet in terms of land?

Background:

 A. Tosfos holds one cannot transgress the prohibition of don’t steal if he steals land (See Minchas Chinuch, mitzva 38).

 B. Everyone agrees one can transgress the prohibition of don’t covet by land as it says “Don’t covet the house of your friend.”

C. Haghos HaMaimoni (Rambam chapter 1, hilchos Gezel viAveida, halacha 11) says that the problem with the prohibition of don’t covet is not the action of taking from your friend but rather the exceeding effort of urging your friend until he gives it to you.

Answer: Since the prohibition of stealing is taking it, the Torah only limited the prohibition to movable objects. Whereas by “don’t covet” where the actual sin is the coveting, meaning the concerted effort put in is the real problem and taking what you want is only a condition or just revealing to what extent one desires it, then there is no difference between land or movable objects.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #47

  1. Question:  Why does the litigant (lender) have to be in court in order to accept witnesses that a debt was paid in a case where the defender (borrower) says he paid a debt of his deceased father’s and there is a receipt that it was already paid?

Background:

  1. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:18) says that the only time the rule that a litigant must be present when accepting witnesses in court applies is when he is the one claiming money, (meaning he is trying to extract money from the other party) but one can bring witnesses to court even if he isn’t there in order to exempt himself from needing to pay anything.
  2. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 108:16) says that children who inherited a document of debt for a loan from their father and then a receipt was found after the father’s death that the borrower had paid the debt, one shouldn’t rip up the document of loan or try to collect the debt until the orphans grow up since this receipt might have been forged which is why the borrower did not reveal it until after the father died. Even if there are witnesses who can testify that they remember the payment, there testimony is not valid testimony because we don’t accept testimony if the litigants aren’t present (and as children they are not considered present even if they show up to court.)
  3. Aren’t the witnesses used to exempt the borrower from making the payment so the litigant does not have to be there?
  4. Once a debt is paid the loan document is usually ripped up.

Answer: Ripping up the loan document is considered taking away from the litigant so the children must be adults and present in court in order to do that.