Nefesh HaChaim

Parshas Mattos:Kashering Keilim by Midyan

2011-07-26T17:28:00.000-04:00

The Ramban asks why did B'nei Yisroel only get the mitzvah of kashering the keilim by Milchemes Midyan and not previously after Milchemes Sichon V'Og.

The Ramban answers that during war all issurim are muttar. We learn this from the possuk in Va'eschanan "U'batim mileim kol tuv". The gemara in Chullin 17a writes that even chazir is muttar during battle. Therefore, by Milchemes Sichon V'Og the b'nei Yisroel were allowed to use the pots they took. However, the Ramban explains that this heter only applies by kibush Eretz Yisroel. Milchemes Midyan was not kibush EY (ayin http://www.divreichaim.blogspot.com/ for the Rogotchover's mehalech in being magdir this war). Therefore, issurim were assur and mimeilah they needed to be told to kasher the pots.

L'ma'aseh the Ramban is l'shitaso in Parshas Va'Eschanan. There the Ramban explains that the heter b'sha'as milchama applies to everyone and even after the war the spoils of war are muttar even if they are assur (orlah, chazir). However, the Rambam disagrees. The Rambam paskens (Melachim 8:1) that this heter only applies to the army and b'sha'as hadechak when they are hungry. (In fact the Chasam Sofer in Chullin equates the heter of issurim to the heter of yifas toar-i.e. dibrah torah kneged yetzer hara). The Minchas Chinuch in Shoftim discusses this machlokes Rambam and Ramban.

According to the Rambam how do you answer the Ramban's kasha-why didn't the get a mitzvah of kashering keilim by Sichon V'Og.

There are several ways to answer this kasha.

1) Daas Zikeinim writes that Sichon V'Og took place in the fields so there were no keilim. Midyan took place in the cities where they took keilim from the houses.

2) Several Achronim (Lev Aryeh in Chullin 17a and Tzlach in Chullin) write the Rambam is l'shitaso. In Pesachim there is a machlokes if ta'am k'ikar is min hatorah or midirabanan. Rabbi Akiva holds it is min haTorah and the rayah is that we had to kasher keilim of Midyan. The Chachamim hold klei midyan are no rayah since that whole sugyah is a chiddush cause keilim were nosein taam lifgam. The Rambam paskens ta'am kikar is d'rabanan so he holds klei midyan were a chiddush. Once you say it's a chiddush then you can't ask why davka by Midyan they got the mitzvah-the whole thing is a chiddush.
The Achronim want to take it a step farther and say that the Ramban holds ta'am kikar is d'oreisa, and mimeila he has to hold by milchama that all issurim are muttar in order to answer his kasha. However, I saw the Chasam Sofer holds the Ramban says ta'am kikar is dirabanan.

3) The Chavtzeles Hasharon doesn't like this pshat because the Pri Megadim says that even though the Rambam holds ta'am kikar is dirabanan, nevertheless kashering keilim is d'oreisa. So again why didn't they have the mitzvah by Sichon v'Og.

He answers that the Chazon Ish (OC) writes that Moshe got all the mitzvos at Har Sinai but was not told to tell B'nei Yisroel certain mitzvos until later. Could be this is one of those mitzvos and HKBH decided not to tell B'nei Yisroel until Midyan for some reason only known to HKBH.

Bris drasha

2011-07-04T13:20:00.001-04:00

Here is the speech I said today at my son's bris. We named him Michoel Dovid after my mother's father (Michoel) and my father in law's father (Dovid)
There is an interesting aspect of the bris milah that does not get a lot of attentiion. It is brought down that after the bris the minhag is to bury the orlah in the ground. The Ksav Sofer says that the mekor for this minhag is based on a medrash in this weeks Parsha. The Medrash says that when Bilam saw the orlos in the Midbar he said who can stand against klal yisroel who have the bris mila that they bury in the dirt.

Bilam, then went ahead and gave klal yisroel the beracha "Mi mana yaakov K'afar" who can count the dust of Yaakov and the seed of Yisroel.

The Ksav Sofer concludes that frm here is the minhag to bury the orlah in the dirt.

The Avudraham brings a different mekor. He says that the reason we bury he orlah is based on the havtacha that HKB”H made with Yaakov on the way to Lavans house. HKB”H promised Yaakov that his children will be like the dirt of the ground.In truth these 2 mekoros are actualy in sync with each other. There is another medrash in parshas Bamidbar, ( and I would like to thank my father in law for pointing out to me this medrash). The Medrash says that Hahsem promised Avraham that his children will be k’kochvei hashamayim. He promised Yitzchak they will be k’chol hayam. And to YTaakov he promised that they will be k’afar haertz. The medrash then concludes that the havtacha to yaakov was fullfilled b’zman of Bilaam when he blessed B’nei Yisroel "Mi mana yaakov K'afar"

So we see that the m’kor of the Ksav Sofer which is learnt from the possuk "Mi mana yaakov K'afar" is the kiyum of the havtachah of `k’afar haertz. which is the mekor according to the Avudraham. It
would seem then the key to understanding this minhag of burying the orlah in the ground is to understand the beracha of k’afar haertz.

The medrash says that there are 3 characteristics that dirt has that are found in Klal Yisroel. First
of all just like dirt is always stepped on and trampled on so too Klal Yisroel is always stepped on. Second of all just like dirt can never be totally destroyed-as much as you grind up dirt all you are left with is more dirt, so too Klal Yisroel can never be destroyed. And finally jsut like when you water dirt it has the capability to grow and produce so too Klal Yisroel has the capacity to grow and grow.

It is interesting that the first characterisitc is the total opposite and even contradictory to the last 2. How is it possible for something that is constantly being steeped on to a) never be destroyed and b) contine to flourish? The meforshim point out that Yaakov was the prototype of the Jew in golus and the havtacha of k’afar haertz. given to Yaakov was a beracha meant precisely for golus. Even in golus when we are in a matzav of being beaten and stepped on we will still grow.

This is what the medrash is telling us- we are like dirt always being stepped on but we are also
like dirt that even in such a matzav not only do we survive but we also grow.
The question still remains how does this happen? I think the answer comes from the second half
of the possuk. Hashem tells Yaakov "ufaratzta yama vakedma tzofona vnegba" The gemara in Shabbos says that from here we learn one can be zocheh to a "nachalah bli mitzarim" We see from the gemara that the havtacha of k’afar haertz is a havtacha of "nachalah bli mitzarim". It’s a havtacha that klal yisroel has the ability to transcend the limitations of the natural world and go l’ma’leh min hateva. This is precisely why even in golus, in a matzav of k’afar haertz. we are able to survuve and even grow-because we were also blessed with the beracha of "nachlos bli mitzarim"-the ability to go against the natural teva.

I think with this yesod we can now explain why the mila is covered in dirt. We know that a bris

mila takes place on the eighth day. One of the reasons given is that 8 represents l’ma’aleh min

hateva and a bris milah is l’ma’aleh min hatva. I mentioned at the shalom zachor that we see

from the parsha of mei meriva that when the water from the well came b’zechus Miriam, Moshe

had to hit the rock. However, at mei merivah when the water was coming b’zechus Moshe, all he

had to do was speak to the rock. The Chasam Sofer writes that the ma’aleh that Moshe had over

Miriam was his bris milah. The zechus of bris milah allowed Moshe to accomplish more. We see

from here that a bris milah allows one to go l’ma’aleh min hateva.

Furthermore, as we mentioned klal yisroel itself is a nation l’ma’aleh min hateva and the bris

mila is a baby’s entrance into klal yisroel. Not only is it the first mitzvah that will be performed

with this child but also, Rav Elchanan writes that Avraham was the first member of klal yisroel

and he became a memeber through his bris mila. It would seem then that it is only fitting that the

orlah of the mila which represents that aspect of a Yid that allows him to go l’ma’aleh min

hateva and represents that teh child is a member of a nation that is l’ma’aleh min hateva should

be buried in the dirt which is representative of the havtacha to klal yisroel that because they are

l’ma’aleh min hateva not only will they neevr be destroyed in golus but they will also grow in

golus.

Shalom Zachor

2011-07-03T01:01:00.000-04:00

This past Shabbos I had a shalom zachor for my new son who was born last Monday. Below are the 2 divrei torah I said over.

1) The Chasam Sofer (Chukas) brings a medrash that when the"mem" of the mateh aharon v'moshe was nifgam then the "mem" of the bris mila was nifgam.

The Chasam Sofer explains that HKBH told Moshe to talk to the rock ancd instead Moshe hit it. Moshe's kavanah was that he felt bad for Miriam. Originally the rock produced water b'zechus Miriam. However, in order to produce the water Moshe had to hit the rock. Now that the rock was producing water b'zechus Moshe all Moshe had to do was talk to it. This would indicate that Moshe was on a higher madreigah than Miriam. In order to protect the kovod of Miriam, Moshe hit the rock.

The Chasam Sofer explains that Moshe's cheshbon was wrong. The Medrash says that if you have a man and woman with equal level of tziddkus and on the same madreigah the man could accomplish more because of his bris mila. The reason Moshe only needed to speak to the rock while for Miriam, Moshe needed to hit the rock was because of Moshe's bris mila and not because Moshe was on a higher madreigah.

The Chasam Sofer then says that maybe Moshe understood this, but he felt if he used the ma'aleh of bris mila it would look bad for Klal Yisroel who didn't have a bris in the midbar. Therefore he chose to hit the rock.

2) Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes L'Yaakov writes that the chok of para aduma is m'galeh on the whole torah that we only keep mitzvos because of gezeiras hashem.
We find that one of the mitzvos given at Marah was Para Aduma. Rav Yaakov explains para aduma at that time had no purpose-it wasn't a practical mitzvah. Yet it was given to teach klal yisroel the ikar of learning is l'shma even if it is only theortetical.

We know that a baby is taught kol hatorah in the mother. Why? In reality all the Torah it learns is impractical and not l'ma'aseh. There is no Shabbos or Kashrus inside the mother.
But maybe that is gufa the idea-to teach the baby the ikkar is torah lishma just like we learn from para aduma.

Mamzerim and Moshiach

2011-06-22T14:47:00.000-04:00

I just went through an interesting sugyah from teh 4th perek in Kiddushin. The gemara says that when Moshiach comes Eliyahu will be mitaheir the mamzeirim. The Ramban learns that even a mamzer vadai will be muttar. The Ran asks that how can it be that the issur of marrying a mamzer will be battul. Rather the gemara means that any mamzer who is mixed in with klal yisroel and we don't know that he is a mamzer will now be muttar. Eliyahu will not reveal the fact that he is a mamzer.

The Ran says that this has a nafka mina b'zman hazeh. Even if someone knows that a person is a mamzer, he can't reveal it. Just like Eliyahu knows who is a mazer and won't reveal it, so too we can't reveal who is a mamzer. The Rema in Even HaEzer (Siman 2) brings the Ran l'halacha.

There is a machlokes between the Chelkas Michokeik and Beis Shmuel (Even HaEzer Siman 2) whether this halacha applies to 2 eidim. The Chelkas Michokeik says the Ran is only referring to a situation where one eid knows someone is a mazeir, or where there is a rumor about a person then we don't investigate. But if 2 eidim know they have to tell beis din. The Beis Shmuel holds even 2 eidim can't say anything.

The Chazon Ish (Even HaEzer Siman 1) seems to pasken like the Chelkas Michokeik.

The Lesson of the SHekalim in Defeating Haman

2011-03-20T01:11:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Megillah (13b) says:
"אמר ריש לקיש גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שעתיד המן לשקול שקלים על ישראל לפיכך הקדים שקליהן לשקליו והיינו דתנן באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים"
“Reish Lakish says that it was revealed before the one who created the world that Haman would pay shekalim to kill the Bnei Yisroel. Therefore, our shekalim preceded his shekalim as we learn in the Mishna “On the first of Adar they make the appeal for shekalim”.
The gemara is referring to the fact that המן offered אחשׁורושׁ 10,000 shekalim to kill the בני ישראל. In anticipation of this, הקב"ה instituted that every year a half shekel would be collected for use in the Beis HaMikadash. The question is what is the connection between the yearly donation of a half-shekel to the shekalim that המן paid אחשׁורושׁ. Furthermore, the story of Purim took place in golus when there was no Beis HaMikdash and consequently there were no shekalim being collected. How then did these shekalim have the ability to overturn the gezeirah of המן.
In order to understand this gemara we need to uinderstand what the shekalim represented.                   The מדרש תנחומא (פרשׁת כי תשא סימן ג) says that that הקב"ה told משׁה רבינו that by reading פרשׁת שׁקלים every year it is as if משׁה רבינוhimself is here and raising us up. Rav Tzaddok(פרי צדיק פרשׁת שׁקלים) explains that פרשׁת שׁקלים begins with the phrase "כי תשא את ראשׁ" because the act of "נשיאת ראשׁ" implies that you are raising that person over someone else and making him the leader. When הקב"ה commanded משׁה to raise up בני ישראל he was telling משׁה that each individual Jew has the ability to be the best in one area. The מדרשׁ says that the תורה could only be given with 600,000 Jews. If one of them was missing there is something missing from כלל ישראל. Just like a sefer torah is posul if one letter is missing so too בני ישראל are not complete if there are less than 600,000 Jews, and an incomplete כלל ישראל can’t get the Torah. Rav Tzadok says that this מדרשׁ teaches us that each person from כלל ישראל has a part of his נשׁמה that is unique and that noone else has. This unique part of a person is brought out through לימוד התורה. This is the reason why we say "איזה הוא חכם הלומד מכל אדם". Since each person has his own חלק in תורה, everyone has something to teach others that only he can teach. Furthermore, this חלק of a person ultimately has its roots in the חכמה of הקב"ה and is considered to be a חלק אלוק ממעל. Rav Tzaddok adds that this concept does not just apply to learning Torah. The גמרא (תענית כא.) says that each person has his time in which הקב"ה wants/needs that unique chelek of good that a person possesses. When this time comes, that person is raised up above everyone.This concept, Rav Tzaddok writes is what the shekalim come to reinforce. When a person gives his half-shekel, he is showing that he is an individual who can make his own unique contribution to the תורה and to כלל ישראל. When the מדרשׁ says a person is raised up to the top over everyone else, it doesn’t mean he is better than everyone but rather it means that he is the best person to fulfill his unique role.
In order to answer what this has to do with defeating המן we have to understand what המן represents. The מדרשׁ תנחומא (כי תצא ט) writes "עמלק, עם שׁבא ללק דמן שׁל ישראל ככלב" . עמלק is a nation that laps up the blood of בנ"י like a dog. Rav Tzaddok (פרשׁת זכור) explains that עמלק’s war against בנ"י comes on two levels. At first he seduces and convinces us to do aveiros However, even after we have sinned and fallen, עמלק comes along to make us fall even further. He convinces us that all is lost and there is no hope. He creates in us a

sense of יאושׁ and once we are מייאשׁ, we give up hope of doing teshuva. After all, why should we do teshuva if there is no point to anything. This is why עמלק is compared to a dog that laps up the leftover blood. Whatever self worth we have left after doing an aveirah is destroyed by עמלק. He comes along and sucks all the life out of us.
This idea can be applied to the story of פורים. The בני ישראל were in golus as a punishment for their aveiros. By taking part in the סעודת אחשׁורושׁ we were exhibiting the signs of יאושׁ. אחשׁורושׁ was celebrating our גלות and we joined him in the celebration. Is there any greater יאושׁ than celebrating one’s own downfall? Shortly after, המן comes along and takes advantage of our יאושׁ to try and totally destroy us. המן told אחשׁורושׁ that we were an עם מפוזר ומפורד. According to what we have been saying we explain that one sign of יאושׁ is not recognizing that we are all in this toether. Giving up hope on the גאולה is tantamount to saying that כלל ישראל as a nation, as an עם הנבחר is a relic of the past. By not recognizing that we are in fact one nation, we were showing signs of being an עם מפוזר ומפורד.
הקב"ה foresaw that this would happen, so He decided to teach us many years before the Purim story that this attitude is not correct. This lesson was taught to us through the שׁקלים. As we explained from Rav Tzaddok, the shekalim reinforce the idea that each person is a חלק אלוק ממעל and has a unique purpose and goal in life. However, it is not just that we each have a tachlis, but that tachlis comes through connecting to הקב"ה and his תורה. The unique חלק that each of has in תורה, also serves to connect us to to each other through the Torah. Since my fellow Jew has something in תורה that I don’t have, I need him to teach me that part of תורה. At the same time that each of us can create our own individuality through the תורה, we also are connected as one nation through the תורה. The shekalim teach us that we are not an      עם מפוזר ומפורד but rather an עם סגולה and a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדשׁ. This lesson of the שׁקלים was reinforced everytime we donated our half-shekel year after year on ר" אדר.
Perhaps with this idea we can understand another גמרא regarding the שׁקלים of המן.The gemara (מגילה טז.) says that when המן came to put מרדכי on the horse of ,אחשׁורושׁ he found the תלמידים studying the laws of קמיצה that applied to the קרבן עומר. המן commented that their studying the laws of קמיצה pushed away the 10,000 shekalim that he paid אחשׁורושׁ. What is the connection between the 10,000 shekalim paid to      אחשׁורושׁ and the halachos of קמיצה? The significance of this is that not only were the תלמידים of מרדכי connecting to each other through לימוד התורה, but that day was the 16th day of ניסן, the day when the קרבן עומר would have been brought in the בית המקדשׁ. The בנ"י were learning halachos מענינא דיומא that only applied בזמן הבית. Through their learning they were showing that they were no longer in a state of יאושׁ. They had finally accepted and internalized the lesson of שׁקלים that had been taught to them year after year. בּנ"י finally recognized that they were and always will be connected to הקב"ה. When המן saw that the בנ"י had realized this, he realized his plan was going to fail.
Finally, with this מהלך it is very understandable why there was a new קבלת התורה of תורה שׁבעל פה. The entire lesson of the שׁקלים is that we each have our own חלק and כח החידושׁ in the תורה. This חלק is brought out by the חדושׁים that we are מחדשׁ in תורה שׁבעל פה. [In fact we find this idea in the מגילה. The גמרא tells us that "ויעבר מרדכי" refers to the fact that מרדכי decreed a fast day on the first days of פסח. מרדכי used his כח החידושׁ to lead the בנ"י during this עת צרה]. Once בנ"י recognized and appreciated how everyone has their unique part in תורה, it naturally led to a reenergizing of לימוד התורה and a new קבלת התורה on the part of כלל ישראל.

Purim thoughts

2011-03-13T23:14:00.000-04:00

Everyone nows that Achashveirosh did not know where Esther came from. What is interesting is that the gemara in Megillah says that Esther would leave Achashveirosh, go toveil and go to be with Mordechai.Now Esther was in the palace for 9 years before the end of the story. You would have to assume that Achahsveirosh had his best men working to find out where Esther came from. I would assume that would include keeping tabs on her and seeing who she was in contact with. Yet no one was able to catch her sneaking out to visist Mordechai. I find this very interesting.

Parshas Vayikra:Esther Karka Olam

2011-03-13T23:10:00.000-04:00

I'm finally getting around to updating my blog. I hope noone missed me too much.

I spoke this week about the sugyah in Sanhedrin that discusses Esther's marriage to Achashveirosh. The gemara says that for any aveirah done b'pharhesia-in public one must give up their life. The gemara asks what about Esther-she married Achashveirosh which was an aveirah b'pharhesia. The gemara gives 2 answers 1) Abayei says Esther was "karka olam" 2) Rava says since Achshveirosh did it for his own hana'ah it was mutar.

What is meant by "karka olam". The simple understanding is that since she went to Achashveirosh against her will we don't view it as if she did an aveirah. Rav Elchanan in Kovetz Ha'Oras (Siman 48) wants to explain that neither pikuach nefesh is docheh aveirah b'pharhesia and an aveira b'pharhesia isn't doche pikuach nefesh. Therefore, the best cause of action is "shev v'al ta'aseh"-do nothing. Since Esther was forced to live with Achashveirosh, she is considered in a state of shev v'al ta'aseh and it was muttar.

The Rishonim ask what do you do about the fact that she was married to Mordechai and there is an issur of adultry which is one of the big 3 aveiros.

1) Rabeinu Tam says sleeping with a non Jew is not an aveirah of giloy arayos.
2) The Rivam says the heter of karka olam applies to giloy arayos as well.
3) One can also say based on the Rashba in Megillah (15a) that Mordechai gave Esther a get.

Another question that needs to be answered is that when Esther invited Achashveirosh to the party she went to him willingly. The heter of karka olam no longer applies. How then is it mutar? The Maharik (shoresh 167) and Noda Beyehuda (tanyana y.d. siman 161) answer that to save klal yisroel it was mutar. The Kovetz Heoros also suggests that she did it b'issur-it was an aveirah lishma. But elsewhere (siman 45) he quotes the Maharik as well.

A nafka mina l'maaseh is the question whether a married woman can give herself over to a robber to save others.The Shevua Yaakov (chelek 2 siman 117) based on the Maharik says it is muttar and the rayah is Esther. The Noda BeYehuda disagrees. First of all he says we see the Rashba holds Mordechai divorced Esther-so there is no issur eishes ish. Even if you learn like Rahsi that she was married, the heter is only to save all of klal yisorel. to save a few Jews is assur.

Parshas VaEira:Hearing What You Daven

2011-01-02T22:49:00.000-05:00

The Sifsei chachamim makes an interesting diyuk in the parsha. By 9 of the makkos when Moshe davens to remove the makkos the Torah uses the loshon of 'vayetar". However, by the frogs the loshon used is 'vayitzak ". The Sifsei Chachamim explains that the frogs were making so much noise that Moshe couldn't hear himself daven. Therefore, hehad to scream in order to hear himself.

This leads to the question what is the geder of hearing yourself during davening. The halacha is that l'chatchila one must hear yourself daven but b'dieved you are still yotzei sayin it quietly. The chakirah is the following, by not hearing myself daven is it a chisaron in my dibbur and it is as if I am not saying anything or is it a halaca in tefilla that a ma'aleh of tefilla is that you need to hear yourself. (The chazon ish has this chakirah on the sugyah in Berachos). A nafka mina is if you are talking in a normal voice but you can't hear yourself because it is very noisy. According to teh first tzad-it could still be considered dibbur acc. to the 2nd tzad it is still a problem.

By Megillah, a cheiresh who can't hear is possul. The Avnei Nezer discusses the question if someone can't hear himself cause he has earplugs can he be motzi someone? It could be toloi on the above chakirah. The Avnei Nezer says a cheiresh is really a bar chiyuv just he can't be motzi someone cause his speech is not dibbur since he can't hear himself. So too someone who can't hear himself-his speech is not dibbur. (Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds a cheiresh isn't a bar chiyuv).

Catching up on Parsha Cakes

2011-01-02T22:23:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in while even though I promised I would be more consistent. My daughter complained that I haven't put up all of her parsha cakes, so here are the ones I haven't put up yet. All the people are actually edinble, they are made of fondue. However, noone in my family has been brave enough to taste it soI can't tell you how it tastes.

Parshas Vayeishev:Yosef in the pit

Miketz: Yosef's cup in Binyamin's sack

Vayichi:Yaakov's beracha to Ephraim and Menashe

Shemos:Moshe in the Nile

Parshas VaYishlach:Gid HanAsheh Muttar B'Hana'ah

2010-11-22T15:48:00.000-05:00

I spoke this week about an interesting kasha on the Rambam, The Rambam paskens that gid hanasheh is muttar b'hana'ah and one can give it or sell it to a non-Jew. The problem is that there is a sugyah in Pesachim 21b-22a that has a machlokes between Chizkiyah and Rav Avahu. Chizkiyah holds that whenever the Torah says Lo Tochal it means the food is assur to eat but it doesn't tell you whether the food is assur b'hana'ah. Rav Avahu holds that whenever the Torah says Lo Tochal it means the food is assur and is also assur b'hana'ah. The gemra asks on Rav Avahu that we find by gid hanasheh that it says "Lo Yochal", yet it is mutar b'hana'ah. The gemara answers that gid hanasheh is included in neveilah and just like neveilah is muttar b'hana'ah so too is gid hanasheh. The gemara answers that only works if you hold gid hanasheh has ta'am-taste. But if you hold "ein b'gidin b'nosein ta'am" and eating it is like eating a piece of wood, then you can't include gid hanahseh in neveilah. The gemara answers ain hachi nami, if you hold "ein b'gidin b'nosein ta'am" then gid hanasheh is assur b'hana'ah and this is shittas R' Shimon.

The problem with the Rambam is that he paskens "ein b'gidin b'nosein ta'am" and also paskens that gid hanasheh is muttar b'hana'ah. According to the gemara, these two halachos can't co-exist. A number of Achronim attempt to answer the Rambam. One mehalech is found in the Kovetz Shiurim Pesachim Siman 90. The Rambam only counts cooking meat and milk and eating meat and milk as separate lavin. He doesn't count the issur hana'ah of meat and milk as a lav (even though it says "lo sevasheil gidi 3 times). The Rambam writes in Lo Saseh 187 the reason is becasue the issur achilah is really just a form of hana'ah. When the Torah says "Don't eat" what it is really saying is don't have hana'ah-whether by eating ir bu some other form. This is pshat in Rav Avahu who says that whenever the Torah says Lo Tochal it means the food is assur and is also assur b'hana'ah. The torah uses the loshon of eating cause this is the main form of hana'ah.

Rav Elchanan says that this idea of the Rambam can only apply to a case where you get hana'ah by eating the food. However, by gid hanasheh the Rambam holds "ein b'gidin b'nosein ta'am" -there is no hana'ah by eating a gid hanasheh. Al karchach you have to say that the issur achilah of gid hanasheh is the ma'aseh achilah and has nothing to do with the hana'ah. Mimeila the whole drasha of Rav Avahu doesn't apply to gid hanasheh and it is actually muttar b'hana'ah.

Rav Elchanan says this is pshat in the Ramban who answers the kasha on the Rambam by saying that when the gemara said it's R' Shimon it was only l'ravcha d'milsa. Meaning really the gemara could have given this teretz but it said we are going with shittas R' Shimon l'ravcha d'milsa.

(ayin Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Pesachim who rejects this approach.)

Parsha Cakes from Vayeitzei and Vayishlach

2010-11-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

Here is my daughter's cake from the last 2 weeks.

The well from Parshas VaYeitzei

Kever Rochel from VaYishlacj

Toldos Parsha Cake

2010-11-09T09:55:00.000-05:00

Here is this weeks creation.

If you can't tell what it is, it is Yaakov (in blue) and Eisav (in red). The orange in the top left is supposed to be a sword.

Parshas Vayeira and Chaya Sorah: Hachnosas Orchim and Mincha Ketzara

2010-10-31T09:58:00.001-04:00

I figured I would combine 2 weeks into one post since neither topic has a lot on it.

Parshas Vayeira:Hachnosas Orchim

I spoke about the mitzva of hachnasas orchim. I basically went through the Chofetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed and pointed out how the mitzva is done. Here are a few ha'aras.

1) The Chofetz Chaim learns all the halachos from the actual pesukim that describe what Avraham did. He explains that the reason the Torah tells us in detail how Avraham took care of his guests is to show us what the mitzva entaiuls. For example, Avraham told his guests to sit down and rest before they ate. From here we learn you should let your guests catch their breath and relax when they come in before serving the meal.

2) The Rambam paskens that escorting the guests on their way out is teh most important part of the mitzvah. The shiur he gives is different for a rebbi/talmid or a regular guest but it could be up to 2000 amos. The question is why we don't do it today. The Chofetz Chaim suggests that m'ikkar hadin the shiur is 4 amos. Everything else is just lifnim mishuras hadin. Therefore, it was only necessary to escort them to the edge of the city or 2000 amos when the roads were dangerous. In todays times where people are on the street so you just need to the escort them 4 amos.

3) The question is asked if talmud torah is docheh the mitzva of hachnasas orchim since the gemara says taht hachnasas orchim is equal to hashkamas beis medrash. The Chofetz Chaim says that in this regard hachnasas orchim is equal to all other mitzvos. By all other mitzvos the halacha is if the mitzvas can be done by someone else then talmud torah comes first. .Similarly by hachnasas orchim if someone else can take care of the guest as well as you then you can go learn. An example that comes to mind would be if a chashuv guest comes, so if your wife or kids take care of the guest it might be a slap in the face to the guest. In such a case you would have to stay home and care for the guest.

Chaya Sorah: Mincha Ketzara

Since Yitzchak was misakein mincha I spoke about heichi kedusha. I always thougt (ignorantly as it turns out) that heichi kedusha stands for "half kedusha". However a quick google search taught me that "heichi" is yiddish for loud and since the chazzan says the first 3 berachos out loud it was called "heichi kedusha". the actual halachic term is "mincha ketzara"

Here are a few he'oros.
1) There are actually 3 ways brought down how to do it.
The Beis Yosef quotes a Shibulei HaLeket (in siman 232) that if time is short and it is almost past zman mincha you can have everyone daven shemonah esrei and the chazan should just say the 1st 3 berachos and kedusha and not the whole chazaras hashatz. This is how the mechabeir paskens in Siman 232.

The Darkei Moshe in Siman 124 quotes a Maharil that the chazzan starts off saying the first 3 berachos out loud and the tzibbur says it with him word for word including kedusha. Then after kedusha, everyone continues quietly on their own. This is how the Rema paskens in Siman 232 and 124.

The Mishna Berura in Siman 124 and Siman 232 based on the Beer Heitiv in 124 says that the Rema's way should only be done if you are really pressed for time. However, if you will not miss zman mincha o it is better to let the chazzan say the 1st 3 berachos out loud and say kedusha and then everyone should start saying their own shemoneh esrei quietly from the beginning.

How do we do it? Well it depends where you went to Yeshiva. Most of the velt, ( at least as far as I know) follows the Mishna Berura. This is how it is done in MTJ and other places I have been in. However, in YU they follow the Rema. This is because Rav Soloveitchik held the Rema was correct for teh following reason. This is brought down in Nefesh Harav p.124. The Rav felt that chazaras hashatz has a din of tefillas hatzibbur which he explained to mean that the chazzan as representative for the tzibbur is saying over a communal shemonah esrei. He is not just repeating shemoneh esrei to be motzi those who can't read, but rather it is a shemone esrei that everyone is a part of. He compares it to bringing korbonos for the tzibbur. The kohein brings teh korbon but it is on behalf of the whole klal yisroel. Furthermore, the Rav felt that every person has to say kedusha in his own Shemone Esrei. (He doesn't say why this is true, he just states this as fact). However, we don't do that. So how do we accomplish this? Through chazaras hashatz which is tefillas hatzibbur it is as if when we say kedusha that we are saying it as part of our shemone esrei. Based on this, if we follow the Mishna Berura's approach, you will not have said kedusha in your shemone esrei. Therefore, you must do it like the Rema, and your kedusha is now part of your shemoneh esrei.

2) It is clear that heichi kedusha is not ideal. So why do yeshivos do it (MTJ does it every day). Some say because of bittul torah. However, Rav Yaakov Kamentzky in Emes L'Yaakov on Shulchan Aruch (Siman 124) gives a novel reason. He says the whole point of chazaras hashatz is to be motzi those who odon't know how to read. However, in yeshiva, everyone knows how to read so there is no need for chazaras hashatz. .However, you still need to say kedusha. By doing heichi kedusha we accomplish the saying of kedusha without chazaras hashatz. By shachris we can't do it cause you need semichas geulah l'tefilla and if everyone waits for the chazzan to say the 1st 3 berachos and kedusha it will be a hefsek. (acc to the Rema's way this might not be a problem).

3) There is an interesting teshuvas Radvaz brought down that quotes the minhag of the Rambam in Mitzrayim. Apparently, the Rambam set up that the chazzan should say shemoneh esrei out loud and everyone should say it with him through kedusha. Then the chazzan would continue the rest of shemoneh esrei out loud and those who knew how to read would say it to themselves. The reason for doing this was because when everyone first said shemoneh esrei quietly and then had chazzaras hashatz, people would start talking and not pay attention. (Some things never change). Those who didn't know how to read and needed chazaras hashatz to be yotzei were not listening and being yotzei. Therefore, the Rambam set it up teh way he did. The Radvaz was discussing whether they can go back to the original takana which is more ideal or would it be disrespectful to the Rambam. He answers that the Rambam clearly indicates that his takanah was a shas hadchak and now that people in Mitzrayim are frummer and don't talk they can go back to the original takana of chazal of having a silent shemone esrei and chazaras hashatz. ( As a side not it is interesting how history never changes-there are always tekufos where people are not so midakdeik in mitzvos and then people get more educated and are more midakdeik).

4) I heard a psak mipi hashemuah from Rav Dovid Feinstein that it is better for an aveil not to daven a heichi kedusha since the whole point of an aveil davening for the amud is to say more berachos for the niftar's zechus ( by answering amein to the berachos). Davening heichi kedusha doesn't accomplish that

Parsha Cakes

2010-10-31T09:08:00.006-04:00

Last year my sister would bake a cake every Friday based on that weeks parsha.
Here are her cakes.
She inspired my daughters to do it this year. I must admit that my daughters can be very creative. Here are some pictures of the last few weeks cakes.

This is from Lech Lecha, Avraham and Sorah going down to Mitzrayim. I will take partial credit for this since on Friday Parshas Lech Lecha my wife called me up to tell me that the cake fell in and they were trying to figure out what to do. I told her they should make Avraham and Sorah going down to Mitzrayim since there was already an indentation in the cake.

This is from Vayeira, Lot's wife turned to salt. Originally, my daughter drew a shape of a person with blue icing. When I came home from work, I decided that the person had to look like a woman (and she needed a skirt to be tzniyus). So they added the red icing for a skirt and long hair, (What would my kids do without me :-) )

This is Chaya Sorah, the wedding of Yitzchak and Rivka. My only contribution to this one is that I was in the store and helped my daughter find the doilies that she used.

Parshas Lech Lecha:Mila and Bein HaShemashos

2010-10-18T11:35:00.001-04:00

Parshas Lech Lecha (and Vayeira) are always good weeks to talk about the inyanim of bris mila. This week I spoke about a few interesting shailos regarding Bris Mila and Bein HaShemashos.

Just as a brief hakdama, there are two main opinions regarding when nightfall starts. The shitta of the Geonim (and the GR"A) is that we hold that tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after shkiah and Bein Hashemashos lasts for 3/4 of a mil and is the time between shkiah and tzeis. . Rabbeinu Tam however holds that tzeis is 4 mil after shkiah and Bein Hashemashos is the last 3/4 of a mil before his tzeis. The time before Bein Hashemashos (3 1/4 after shkiah) is considered day.

To put this in terms we can understand, let us say a mil is 18 minutes. Also, lets assume sunset (what we call shkiah) is 6:30. According to the Geonim, Bein Hashemashos lasts for (3/4) * 18 or 13.5 minutes, which means tzeis is 6:43 and 30 seconds. According to Rabbeinu Tam, tzeis is 4 mil or 72 minutes after shkiah which would be 7:42. Bein Hashemashos doesn't begin until 3 1/4 mil or 58.5 minutes after shkiah. So Bein Hashemashos for Rabbeinu Tam is from 7:29 30 seconds until 7:42. The time between 6:30 and 7:29.30 is daytime according to Rabeeinu Tam.

Now for the questions. Assume shkiah is 6:30.

We pasken that if a baby is born Bein Hashemashos, the bris is the next day.

1) Let's say a child is born Tuesday night 5 minutes after shkiah at 6:35. According to the Geonim, the baby is born Bein Hashemashos and the bris should be Wdnesday. According to Rabbeinu Tam, the baby was born on Tuesday and the bris should be Tuesday. Rav Moshe writes that this is a case of sefek sfeika. Safeik who we pasken like and even if we pasken like the Geonim, it is a safeik what day it is since it would beBein Hashemashos acc. to Geonim. Rav Moshe wants to say that a safeik in din and safeik in metzius creates a sefek sefeika. Therefore, Rav Moshe says the bris should be Tuesday. However, if the baby was born Motzei Shabbos at 6:35 then Rav Moshe says because of chumra of Shabbos we don't make the bris on Shabbos but do it Sunday. But if one wants to do the bris on Shabbos we don't stop them.

This case happened to me. My son was born a few minutes after shkiah on Thursday, but the Rav I asked said the bris should be on Friday.

Also, Rav Moshe's sefek sfeika would not apply when the baby is born at 7:00. In this case according to the Geonim it is night and Rabeeinu Tam it is day so there is no sefek sefeika.

2) Let's say the baby was born Friday night at 7 pm. According to the Geonim the bris is Shabbos and acc. to Rabbeinu Tam the bris is Friday. The father follows the Geonim and wants to make the bris on Shabbos. However, the mohel follows Rabbeinu Tam. Can the mohel do the bris since it would involve chilul Shabbos. Rav Yechezkel Roth at first says the mohel can't do the bris. But then he says there is a shitta of the Re'ah that if a mohel does a bris sh'lo bizmano on Shabbos it is only mikalkeil. Only the father has a mitzvah on a mila shelo bizmano and since there is no mitzvah for the mohel it is mikalkeil. Therefore, the mohel could do the bris in our case. I don't understand it since mikalkeil is still chayav m'd'rabanan.

3) If a baby is born Friday before shkiah but after you were m'kabeil Shabbos the bris is Friday. Kabbalas Shabbos is meaningless in this case. We follow the day. A similar question is if a Friday bris was delayed and you were mikabeil Shabbos before shkiah and then you were able to do the bris. Do you do the bris? The Taz paskens in Siman 600 you do the bris. However, the Minchas Kohein in Ma'mar 2 Perek 1 disagrees and says you are machmir for chilul Shabbos.

Parshas Noach:Ben Noach and Holchin Acheir Rov

2010-10-13T10:03:00.001-04:00

Does a Ben Noach have the right to use a concept like rov? The Pri Migadim in Teivas Gomeh and Pesicha L'Taaravos Chakira 3 discusses the question of a piece of eiver min hachai that is mixed with other meats. Can a Ben Noach use bittul b'rov to eat the mixture? The Pri Megadim assumes that you can't use rov since the dinim of rov are learned from Sanhedrin and Kodshim/Korbonos. Since these halachos don't apply to a ben Noach, they have no mekor for rov. The Pri Megadim does have a safeik that maybe we still say mi ikka midi d'yisroel mutar u'ben noach assur and therefore the ta'aroves is muttar to a ben noach.

The Noda B'Yehuda (Mahadura Tanyana Even Ezer Siman 42) also holds like this. However, he does say we follow rov l'chumrah. Therefore, we use the rov of rov bi'ilos achar haba'al to say we know who a ben Noach's father is and therefore he is assur to his father's wife.

The Pri Yitzchak (Chelek 2 Siman 60) disagrees and says from the fact that dinei yerusha apply to a ben Noach and a son inherits his father, we see that we use rov and we say rov bi'ilos achar haba'al .

The Chasam Sofer (Yora Deia Siman 71) also holds we say rov by a ben Noach.

There are a few nafka minas.

1) The gemara in Avodah Zara 6B says a ben Noach can bring a korban but he can't bring a treifa as a korban. The only reason we don't say that every animal brought is a safeik treifa is because we use a rov of rov b'heimos k'sheiros. If a ben Noach can't use rov, maybe we should say that a ben Noach can never bring his own korbon on his private bamah beacuse maybe it is a treifa.

One approach to answering the kash ais to say that the only animal that a be nOach can not bring is an naimal that woul dbe posul for a Yisroel to bring. So since a stam animal is muttar for a Yisroel it is also muttar for a ben Noach. Only a definate treifa is a problem.

2) The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzva 32) says that an asufi who lives among rov yisroel can assume he is a yisroel. But if a ben Noach doesn't have rov how can he keep Shabbos since goy sheshavas is chayav misa.

3) The Rambam paskens if B'nei K'turah and B'nei Yishmael get mixed up you give the whole group a bris mila. The Sha'agas Aryeh asks, why don't we go after rov and rov are from Yishmael. His rayah that the Rambam holds we go after rov by a ben Noach is that the Rambam paskensthat if a ger from Amon comes to us we say Sancheirev mixed everyone up and since rov non Jews are not from Amon we can assume this ger is not from Amon and he can marry a Jew.

The Noda B'Yehuda answers that there is no rov by a ben Noach. But in the case of the ger, since he already converted he is a Jew and he can use rov.

The question on the Noda B'Yehuda is so why don't we say any ben Noach is chayav mila since maybe he is from B'nei Keturah and we can't use rov. Also, why did the Rambam only use a case of B'nei Keturah mixed with Yishmael.

One answer I saw is that since other goyim don't have a mesorah to do mila we can assume they are not b'nei Keturah. It is only Yishmael who also has a mesora for mila that we have to worry maybe they are b'nei keturah.

Sukkah and the Rain

2010-10-02T23:47:00.004-04:00

I hope everyone had an enjoyable sukkos and is ready to get back to the regulat grind.

The first night we had a massive downpour right after maa'riv which of course leads into the question of what is one supposd to do when it rains the first night. Basically, there are 2 shittos in the Rishonim. Some Rishonim hold that the first night one has a chiyuv to eat in the sukkah even if it rains. The petur of mitzaeir does not apply the first night. Other Rishonim hold that the petur of mitztaeir does apply the first night and one does not have to eat in the rain. What is the lomdus of the machlokes? There are actually a couple of ways to learn the machlokes. One way is to say that they argue in how to understand the chiyuv of eating in the sukkah the first night. Teh gemara says that we have a gezeirah shava of 15-15 from Pesach to teach us that eating in the sukkah the first night is not optional. Just like one has a chiyuv to eat matzxah the first night so too one has a chiyuv to eat in the sukkah the first night. The question is what is the chiyuv. Does the gezeirah shava just tell us that one has to eat bread the first night and since you can't eat outside the sukkah you have to eat it in the sukkah. However, there is no specific chiyuv to eat in the sukkah. The other way to understand the gezeirah shava is that the limud is telling us that there is a specific chiyuv to eat in the sukkah. It is not enough to eat bread but that bread must be eaten in the sukkah. One nafka mina would be how much bread does one have to eat. If the chiyuv is just to eat bread then one can argue you only need to eat a k'zayis. (You woud then also need to say that the achilas k'zayis on the first night becomes an achilas keva and m'meilah you would require a sukkah for the k'zayis.). According to the 2nd tzad, the chiyuv is to davka eat in the sukkah and since an achilas sukkah is a beitzah, you need to eat a beitzah of bread.

A second nafka mina is our case. Does the petur of mitztaeir/rain/teishvu k'ein taduru apply the first night. If the chiyuv is just to eat bread and you only need a sukkah to allow you to eat the bread so there would still be a petur of mitztaeir/rain/teishvu k'ein taduru and you would be able to eat the k'zayis of bread in the house. According to the 2nd tzad, the chiyuv is to davka eat in the sukkah and one could argue that there is no petur of mitztaeir/rain/teishvu k'ein taduru and one would need to eat the bread in the sukkah even in the rain.

I would just point out that one could argue the two sides differently-ayin Aruch Hashulchan.

What does one do l'halacha? The truth is that even according to the tzad you have a chiyuv to eat in the sukkah in the rain, the chiyuv only applies to the first beitzah/k'zayis. So in reality one could make kiddush in the house, eat the meal and see if it stops raining. If it stops you can go outside eat in the sukkah and be yotzei both shittos. If it doesn't stop raining you could still go outside eat a k'beitzah in the rain and be yotzei the shitta that you need to eat in the rain. The problem is what to do with the beracha of shehechiyanu. The beracha of shehechiyanu goes on the yom tov and on the sukkah. If you made kiddush in the house the shehechiyanu only goes on yom tov. Therefore, the Mishna Berura and other poskim like the Mateh Efraim and Pri Megadim reccomend waiting an hour or two before making kiddush.

I actually had decided to start eating around 9:30 and right when I was ready to make kiddush teh rain stopped. We had our whole meal in the sukkah.

Waiting until Chatzos

There is a shittah brought down to wait until chatzos. It is quoted from the Maharil, although the Sharei Teshuva says that in the Teshuvas Maharil he writes noone did this and the Teshuvos are the ikkar.
The Bekurei Yaakov and Chayei Adam also say to wait until chatzos. The Chayei Adam says you can make kiddush in the house after 2 hours but you should try to stay up until chatzos to eat a k'beitzah in the sukkah. . The Bekurei Yaakov (639:33) says the reason is based on the Magen Avraham that if you don't have wine for kiddush one should wait until chatzos to see if we can get wine. So here too we wait until chatzos to see if we can eat in the sukkah. My problem with the Bekurei Yaakov is that according to all shittos, if it would not be for the beracha of shehechiyanu, you can really make kiddush in the house as long as you eventually eat a k'zayis in the sukkah. So really the only reason you are waiting to make kiddush until chatzos is to get out of the problem of shehechiyanu. But that does not seem to be what the Bekurei Yaakov is saying. He seems to be saying we should be willing to wait until chatzos for it to stop raining to start the entire meal cause we wait up to chatzos to do the mitzvah-just like kiddush. This implies we need to wait up to chatzos for the atual mitzvah not just for shehechiyanu, but then why can't we start the meal earlier and just wait until chatzos to eat a k'beitzah
I think a possible hesber is the following. The GR"A says that the reason you are patur when it rains is caause there is no shem sukkah. In other words, the petur of mitztaeir and petur of rain are not the same. By mitztaeir I have a perfectly good sukkah outside to use, however since to sit in it would not be k'ein taduru I am patur. By rain, the reason I can't sit in the sukkah is because I don't have a sukkah to use. The rain takes away the shem sukkah. According to this, on the first night I really am chayuv to sit in a sukkah. the only reason I can't is because I don't have a sukkah to sit in. I can't eat in the house because I am really chayuv in sukkah. So how long must I wait to get a sukkah? We learn from the Magen Avraham that just like I wait until chatzos to see if I can get wine for kiddush, hu hadin I wait until chatzos to ss if I can get a sukkah-if it stops raining I'll have a sukkah. I think this also explains another part of the Bekurei Yaakov. He throws in the idea that if you are mitztaeir to wait you can eat. But what does he gain by this/. How is this different than the petur of rain? The answer is that they are 2 very different peturim. Mitztaeir is a petur in yeshivas sukkah while rain says I don't have a sukkah to sit in.

.

Mitzvah to Build a Sukkah

2010-09-20T23:59:00.000-04:00

Maybe I should welcome myself back. I haven't posted in awhile mainly due to a combination of summer, work and laziness. (I won't say what was the ikkar and what was the tafeil). I will bli neder try and post more consistently this year but as always I make no promises.

The members of my chaburah asked me to give a shiur during the Yom Kippur break. I spoke about the mitzvah of building a sukkah. Just as a side note, I found that giving the shiur invigorated and energized me for the rest of the day.

There are a number of mekoros which seem to indicate that there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah.

1) Rashi Makkos 8a. Both the Avnei Nezer (459) and Netziv in Ha'Emek Sheilah Parshas Zos Haberacha point out that Rashi seems to hold there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah. The gemara says that if you chop wood and kill someone you are chayav golus even if you are chopping wood to build a sukkah. Rashi writes that chopping the wood is not a mitzvah but building a sukkah is.

2) The Shi'iltos (V'Zos HaBeracha) writes it is a mitzvah to make and sit in the sukkah. The Netziv is medayeik that making a sukkah is also a mitzvah. The m'kor is from the possuk "

3) The Yerushalmi (quoted by Tosafos Sukkah46a) says one makes a beracha on making the sukkah. It would seem from here that it is a mitzvah to build a sukkah. The Minchas Elazer points out that the Bavli in Menachos 42a disagrees and holds there is no beracha on making a sukkah and therefore the Bavli will tell you there is no mitzvah to make a sukkah. However, one could argue that the machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi is whether one makes a beracha on a mitzvah that is not finished. Since the complete mitzvah is sitting in the sukkah the Bavli will hold you don't make a beracha.

4) The gemara says one makes a She'hechiyanu on building a sukkah. The Aruch LaNer says that this only makes sense if you hold building a sukkah is a mitzvah. However, one could argue that the SHehechiyanu really goes on the sitting in the sukkah but we make it by the asiyas sukkah since you need toi build a sukka to be able to sit in it.

5) The Chasam Sofer (Yora Deia 471) and Minchas Elazar hold there is no mitzvah to build a sukkah

Nafka Mina

1) The Netziv says the klal of Mitzvah Bo Yoseur M'Bishlucho applies to building a sukkah. Furthermore, if one plans on using his friends sukkah there would still be a kiyum mitzvah to build your own.

2) The Rema based on the Maharil paskens (Hil Sukkah 655) that one should build a sukkah right after Yom Kippur because Mitzvah HaBa'ah L'Yodcha AL Tachmitzena.

3) The halacha is that a sukkah built by a non Jew is kosher but the poskim write that one should try and add on to it. The Moadim U'Zmanim says the reason for this is because it is a mitzvah to build a sukkah.

4) Genrally speaking, the Shehechiyanu we recite on the first night goes on the Zman and on building/sitting in the sukkah. If one sat in a neighbors sukkah the first days and then built his own sukkah on Chol HaMoed does one make Shehechiyanu. The Mikroei Kodesh says that if you hold there is no mitzvah to build a sukkah then there is no question-of course there is no Shehechiyanu. The Shehechiyanu is only going on the yeshivas sukkah and the zman of sukkos both which were covered on the first night. If you hold there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah then you can start to ask.

Makdish a Sedei Achuza

2010-07-14T14:26:00.000-04:00

I just saw an interesting Chasam Sofer regarding being makdish a sedei achuzah. The gemara in Bava Metziah (67B) has a discussion on various types of collateral (mashkon) that a borrower gives a lender. One type is called "nechyasah". The borrower gives the lender a field as a mashkon where the lender eats the fruits during the years of the loan and the value of the fruit is deducted from the amount that the borrower owes. Another type is called "asrah d'misalki" which means that the borrower has a right t o repay the loan and take back the mashkon anytime before the loan is due.

The Nimukei Yosef quotes the Rashba that there is no problem of ribis by asra d'misalki b'nechyasah. His rayah is from sedei achuzah. By a sedei Achuzah, a person is makdish the field to hekdesh and he can redeem it anytime before yoveil. The amount he pays depends on how many years there are left to yoveil. Teh question is, how is sedei achuza a rayah-there is no loan taking place.

The Chasam Sofer explains that when you are makdish the field you are not makdish the field but rather you are makdish the money-50 shekalim. However, instead of giving the money to hekdesh, you owe them the money and the field is a mashkon. So in reality you borrowed 50 shekalim from Hekdesh and gave them a field as a mashkon. Since you can pay back the loan i.e. redeem the field anytime, the maskon is an asrah d'misalki. Furthermore, since the amount of the loan is reduced based on how many years hekdesh held it, it is also nechyasah. Since the Torah says it works we see there is no ribis by asra d'misalki which is nechyasah

Women and Ba'al Tosif

2010-06-18T12:11:00.000-04:00

I came across in interesting shitta in teh Sefer HaMachria (by the Tosafos RID) Siman 78. Rabbi Akiva Eiger quotes this particular shitta in regards to whether a blind person is chayav in a lo saseh. The Machria writes a blind person is patur from all mitzvos including lo saseh. (Rabbi Akiva Eiger disagrees). However, that is not the biggest chiddush. Here is the chiddush.

First some background: Rabbeinu Tam (Kidushin 31 and other places) writes that a woman can make a beracha on a mitzva she zman grama. A rayah is from suma where one can infer from the gemara in Kiddushin that a suma can make a beracha even though he is patur from mitzvos. The Machria rejects the rayah for the following reason. (Tosafos in Eiruvin and Rosh Hashana rejects the rayah from suma for other reasons). If a woman would do a mitzva she is not chayav in b'toras chov then she violates Ba'al Tosif. Therefore, the rabbanan can never be m'chayeiv a woman in a mitzva d'oreisa because by doing so they cause her to violate Ba'al Tosif and they have no right to be okeir the lav of Ba'al Tosif. However, she can do the mitzva b'toras reshus. However, if she would make a beracha on the mitzva she is showing she wants to do it b'toras chov and m'meila she would be oveir on Ba'al Tosif.

A suma on the other hand is patur from all lavin. He has no issur of Ba'al Tosif. Therefore, the rabanan can be m'chayav him in mitzvos and he can make a beracha. Doing a mitzva which he doesn't have to do b'toras chov doesn't violate Ba'al Tosif since he is not chayav on lavin.

This idea that a woman is oveir Ba'al Tosif for doing a mitzva b'toras chov, and m'meila the rabanan can't be m'chyeiv her to do it, is a chiddush.

I just want to add that when I wrote "the rabbanan can never be m'chayeiv a woman in a mitzva d'oreisa because by do so they cause her to violate Ba'al Tosif " is my own hesber in the Machria. The Machria doesn't differentiate between the rabanan being m'chayeiv a woman in a d'oreisa or being m'chyeiv her in a din d'rabanan or takana/gezeirah d'rabanan like netilas yadayim. But to me he can't mean they have no right to be m'chyeiv her in a din d'rabanan. It makes no sense to say that. That is why I think he means they can't be m'chayeiv her in a d'oreisa.

Parshas Beha'alosecha:Standing for a Sefer Torah

2010-05-31T11:06:00.000-04:00

Since this parsha has the "famous" VaYehi Binso'a Aron, I decided to talk about standing for a sefer torah.
The gemara says that since we are obligated to stand for a talmid chacham, kal v'chomer one must stand fro the sefer torah itself. However, the Taz writes in Yora Deia 242:13 that if the sefer torah is in its own mokom, defined as an area surrounded by mechitzos 10 tefachim high and 4 tefachim wide, then you do not have to stand. The Mishna Berura brings this down l'halacha in the Sha'ar Hatzion (146:18) as well. However, even though there is no chiyuv, the minhag is to stand for kovod hatorah.

The question is what about when the sefer torah is on the shulchan? Well, if the shulchan is on a real bima that is surrounded by mechtizos so then it is in its own reshus and there is no chiyuv to stand. Even if the shulchan is a standalone shulchan but it has sides then it is also not a problem. The problem really comes up when the shulchan is a regualr table with 4 legs. Since there are no mechitzos, it can not be considered a separate reshus.

There is a machlokes between the Pri Megadim and Rav Moshe what the halacha is.

The Shulchan Aruch in Y.D. Siman 242:18, the Mechabeir paskens that if your Rebbi gets an aliyah you don't have to stand up for him when he is standing by the shulchan. The Rema adds that you also don't need to stand if the bima is a separate reshus. The question is how does one understand the Rema. Is he saying a totally different din than the Mechabeir or is he explaining the Mechabeir? The Pri Megadim (Mishbitzos Zahav end of Siman 142) writes that the Mechabeir and Rema are saying two different halchos. The Mechaber is telling you that you don't have to stand because your Rebbi is in his place. The only time you have to stand for your Rebbi is when he is in transit,or temporarily standing to rest. Since in our case he is not in transit you don't have to stand.for him. The Rema is telling us a different halacha of reshus acheres-being in another reshus. The Pri Megadim concludes that since the halachos of standing for a Rebbi and a Sefer Torah are the same, when the Torah is also not in transit one does not have to stand. Therefore, even if the Torah is on a regular table you don't have to stand. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Y.D. 242) and the Mishna Berura (146:17) both seem to agree with the Pri Megadim.

Rav Moshe (O.C. chelek 1 Siman 175) disagrees. He argues that the Rema is just explaining the Mechabeir and both of them are talking about the halacha of reshus acheres. His rayah is the fact that by standing for a Nasi, the Rambam writes you have to stand until he is seated. By a Sefer Torah the Rambam says you only need to stand while it is transt, implying when it reaches its place even if it is still standing you don't need to stand. (The Pri Megadim learns the Rambam by Nasi as lav davka-you don't need the Nasi to davka be sitting). Rav Moshe explains that really you can only sit when the Sefer Torah is seated. However, there is a fundemental difference between a person and a Sefer Torah. A Torah doesn't stand or sit. It is always being held. When the person carrying the Torah is no longer oin transit, the Torah is now sitting-sitting in the person's arms since a person is also a reshus acheres.

However, when the Torah is on a table, it is not considered sitting. But you still don't need to stand. The reason is because once the Sefer Torah is in its mokom there is no chiyuv to stand. The mokom for the Torah at this point is on the shulchan. so you can read from it. Therefore, you can sit down.

Parshas Bamidbar:Megillas Rus

2010-05-17T15:56:00.000-04:00

Rashi (Rus 4:6) explains that the Goeil doesn't want to fulfill teh mitzvah of yibum with Rus because he is worried that it will be a pegam on his children. The obvious question is that if the Goeil felt that it was assur to marry Rus because she came from Moav, why is he only concerned about his children-he should be worried about himself as well. He has no right to do an aveirah and marry Rus.

The Maharsha (Yevamos 77) answers that the Goeil felt the mitzva of Yibum is doche the issur of marrying a Moavis. How is there a mitzvah of Yibum? The Ramban in Vayeishev explains that the minhag kadmonim was that if a man died childless one of the man's male relative would marry the widow in order to perpetuate the dead man's name. This was the kavana behind Yehuda and Tamar. The Ramban adds that before Mattan Torah, any male relative would marry the widow. After Mattan Torah only a male relative who is muttar to marry the widow would marry her. The exception to this is obviously the dead man's brother where the Torah specifically allowed him to marry the widow. However, in a case where there was no brother it was the custom for any male relative (who is muttar to the widow) to marry the widow. The Ramban concludes that this is what happened with Boaz and Rus.

Therefore, the Maharsha writes that this aseh of Yibum was docheh the lav of Moavis. However, the Maharsha asks that the gemara tells us that really aseh docheh lo saseh would only apply to the first bi'ah. After that there is no aseh. Therefore, chazal made a gezeirah against doing bi'ah rishona so one won't come to do bi'ah shniah. In other words the klal of aseh docheh lo saseh would not apply to yibum. The Maharsha answers that perhaps the Goeil lived before the gezeirah and we would say aseh doche lo saseh.

However, the bottom line is Rus is still assur lavo bakahal. Even though bi'ah rishona is muttar, any child born from this union would be a Moavi and pasul to marry a Jew. This is why the Goeil refused to do yibum-he didn't want any child born from Rus to be pasul.

The Bereichas Ma'ayan asks on the Maharsha that the Ramban only writes it was a minhag to do yibum, he never says it is a mitzvas aseh. tzarich iyun on the Maharsha.

The Brisker Rav (al HaTorah on Rus) gives a more lomdishe answer. The Rambam paskens that one can not argue on Halacha L'Moshe Misinai. However a later beis din can argue and pasken against a halacha learned out of the 13 middos. Boaz held the derasha of Moav v'lo Moavis was Halacha L'Moshe Misinai. The Goeil was modeh to this. However, he was afraid that in a future generation there would be an assumption that this halacha is not Halacha L'Moshe Misinai.but rather it is learned from a drasha. Then a future Beis Din will disagree with the drasha and pasken a Moavis is pasul and his children will be pesulim. In fact that is what happened to Dovid HaMelech. (Yevomas 77). Do'eig argued that Moav v'lo Moavis is a drasha and he had questions against the drasha. Eventually Avner answered that it is a Halacha L'Moshe Misinai and noone can argue against it,.

Chaburos from the last few weeks:Parshas Shimini

2010-04-20T11:07:00.000-04:00

I haven't had a chance to write up my chaburos from the last few weeks. I spoke about some "controversial" topics, one recent anmd one from a few years ago. Parshas Shimini I spoke about the shailah surrounding the worms in the fish and Parshas Tazria Metzora I spoke about metzitzah b'peh.

Parshas Shimini

I really didn't have anything to add to the question. I just presented the shailah and explained what the machlokes is about. Most of my information came from a friend of mine who works in kashrus who sent me several articles and teshuvos on the topic. Also, the OU has a write-up of their position (l'kula) on their website and last week's HaModia also had an article on the chumra position.

In summary, the gemara in Chullin 67B says bugs/parasites/worms found in the inside of the fish (the "viscera" i.e. stomach section) is assur and those found between the flesh and skin or in teh flesh are muttar. The gemara says the reason is cause they grew from within the fish. This is also how we pasken.

The problem is that we now know that all parasites come from the outside. It is the proverbial cycle of life. These parasites get eaten by krill which then get eaten by fish that we eat (like salmon) then these fish get eaten by seals and dolphins. The parasites lay their eggs in the seals/dolphins and the eggs get expelled with the watse and they hatch in the water and the cycle starts all over again. The question is, if we know that the worms come from the outside of the fish, maybe they should be assur.

The question was raised 25-30 years ago and the poskim of the time among them Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l , Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l held if the worms are found in the flesh they are not assur and fish did not require bedikah. (Rav Elyashiv was also matir but I understand it was for different reasons then Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalmen. I am also not clear on where they disagreed). In order to reconcile Chazal with the science on eof two approaches were taken. 1) Either we ignore science and say Chazal were correct, therefore, if Chazal say bugs in flesh are muttar cause they grow there, then they are muttar. 2) Or a sevara was said that microscopic worms that can't be seen are muttar and since the worms were microscopic when they entered the fish, they never became assur. They only grew inside the fish. It should be pointed out that Rav Elyashiv doesn't hold of this sevara-he holds even if it originally was microscopic, but now you can see them, they would be assur. However, he still held the worms werer muttar 30 years ago.

Recently, the issue was raised again. What changed? The claim is that we can now see very clearly that one of the worms in the fish called Anasakis comes from the outside. The arguement is that the hetterim of 30 years ago only apply to parasites where we don't know for sure where they originally came from. Howeevr, if we know with 100% certainty they come from the outside, then even the poskim of yesteryear (i.e. Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman) would have said they were assur. Furthermore, the sevara of microscopic worms doesn't apply since we can see these worms outside the fish. This is the opinion of the machmirim.

The meikilm hold that nothing has changed. The same parasite we have now is the same as 30 yeas ago and is the same as in teh times of Chazal. I spoke to someone who is familair with Rav Belsky's opinion and Rav Belsky is meikil. He holds that when Chazal told us worms found in the flesh are muttar, they are muttar. Chazal never distinguished where these worms originally came from, as long as they are found in the flesh it is muttar. He further feels that when Rav Moshe was aksed this shailah, he didn't even understand why it was a question. It is a davar pashut it is muttar and there is nothing to talk about.

That's a brief synopsis of the issue. My understanding is that the major national kashrus organizations are being meikil although there are definately local va'ads that are being machmir. It should also be noted that the HaModia had a list of fish (besides wild salmon) which are a problem according to the machmirim. One of the reasons some fish (like farm raised salmon) don't have this problem is that these fish don't eat krill and therefore they don't have these parasites in their system. (There could also be othe reasons but this is one of them).

As always ask your Rav.

Interesting Psak from Rav Elyashiv on Bedikas Chametz

2010-03-26T15:10:00.000-04:00

I just saw in an interesting psak from Rav Elyashiv in his haggada and I subsequently found the same idea in his sefer "He'oros" on Pesachim. He says that the way we clean now-a-days where we spend anywhere from 20-30 days before Pesach cleaning our house fulfills the chiyuv bedika, l'chatchila. The only time Chazal required a candle is to look in the cracks and crevices. But for cleaning our fridges, closets, under the beds, cabinets etc, it is l'chatchila to clean the way we do it. Furthermore, he writes that if one cleaned their whoile house and there is no chametz in teh house it has a din of a mokom shein machnisin bo chametz and there is no chiyuv bedikah on the night of the 14th of Nisan. Taking it one step further, he says if after cleaning your house so there is no chametz, one were to do a bedika on the 14th and not put out 10 pieces of bread, the beracha would be a beracha l'vatala.

I saw in Halichos Shlomo that Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l argues on this last prat. He holds there would still be a chiyuv bedika even if you cleaned your house. However, it would seem that Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l would be maskim that are cleaning definately helps. He says that you need to ask your wife about each spot if it was cleaned (did you chlean the fridge, the table etc) and then take a quick look to see if there are any pieces of chametz. In fact the Halichos Shlomo brings a ma'aseh that one year Rav Shlomo Zalman burnt his beard from the candle when checking under a bed. After that he had people help him. Presumably (at least the way I understand what Rav Shlomo Zalman is saying) if one did not clean before hand you might need to do a more thourough bedika on the 14th.

Parshas Ki Tisa:Mumar L'Chilal Shabbos

2010-03-08T15:50:00.001-05:00

The Tur in Even HaEzer brings the shitta of the Sefer HaIttur that if someone is amichalel Shabbos in public, then his kiddushin is not a kiddushin since he has the status of a non Jew. The m'kor for the Ittur is a possuk in this week's parsha "beini u'ben bnei yisroel os hi l'olam". If you don't keep Shabbos then you are not part of Yisroel.

There are 2 interesting shailos discussed in the poskim that are relevant to us. One is whether one can drink the wine touched by a michaleil Shabbos and the other shailah is whether one can cook on Yom Tov for a michaleil Shabbos (just like you can't cook for a non Jew on Yom Tov, you would not be able to cook for a michaleil Shabbos.

Chazon Ish

It should be noted that this whole discussion could be moot. That is because there is a shitta of the Chazon Ish that most non frum Jews today are in the catagory of a tinok she'nishba and would not be considered a michaleil SHabbos b'pharhesia. The Chazon Ish (Yora Deia Siman 1:6) writes that if someone would invest the appropriate hishtadlus necessary to convince a person to be frum, and that person would become frum then as long as there was no appropriate hishtadlus done, that non frum person is a tinok she'nishba. According to this Chazon Ish it would appear that the only question to be asked is what is called appropriate hishtadlus and for each person the answer would be different.

Status of Wine

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in the Har Tzvi discusses the status of the wine. He writes that it is clear from a number of places (Teshuvos HaRashba, Rivash) that the wine of a michaleil Shabbos b'pharheisia is assur. He says some want to argue that the whole reason the wine of a non Jew who does not worship avoda zara is assur is because we are afraid if you drink their wine you will marry their daughters (mishum chasnus). However, there is no issur to marry teh daughter of a michaleil Shabbos. Therefore the wine should be muttar. The Har Tzvi rejects this and says once the gezeirah was made not to drink wine of a non Jew, we don't look at the reason. If a michaleil Shabbos has the din of a non Jew then his wine is assur even if his daughter would be muttar.

It seems that the Chazon Ish disagrees. In Yora Deia (2:28) he writes that since the reason of chasnus does not apply to a michaleil Shabbos, his wine is muttar. Furthermore, the Rambam doesn't mention it is assur and even the Rashba who holds it is assur doesn't bring a m'kor.

The L'horos Nosson (chelek 1 siman 39) and Tzitz Eliezer (chelek 8) also discuss this in relation to having non frum waiters at hotels. Are they allowed to serve wine? The L'horos Nosson mentions the sevara of the Chazon Ish but he says that the Rishonim are mefurash against the Chazon Ish. The Ramban in Chullin says that even though the daughters of a mumar is muttar. He also brings the Chasam Sofer that the wine is assur as a k'nas and not because of chasnus. Furthermore, the Chazon Ish himself in Yora Deia (49:7) paskens the wine of a michaleil shabbos is assur because of a knas, even though there is no issur chasnus.In the end, the L'horos Nosson is meikel for several reasons a) they have a din of tinok shenishba like the Chazon Ish b) they would be embarrased to be m'chaleil shabbos in front of a talmid chacham and therefore it is not b'pharhesia c) the waiters don't actually touch the wine with their hands. The Tzitz Eliezer vehemently disagrees and he says they are not tinok shenishba and the heter of not touching the wine does not apply here. He also quotes the sevara of the Har Tzvi as well.

Cooking on Yom Tov

Interestingly, while the Tzitz Eliezer is machmir by wine, he is meikil by cooking on Yom Tov. He writes that the only reason one can not cook for a non Jew is if you don't use the sevara of "Ho'il"-this sevara says I can cook on Yom Tov even though noone needs the food because maybe guests will come. However,m we do say this sevara. There is a tzad not to use "ho'il" beacause maybe you will cook non kosher food for teh non Jew and you coudn't argue you are cooking to feed guests. However, by a non frum Jew this chashash does not apply. At the end of the day he allows you to cook for a non frum Jew.

Dvar Torah on Purim based on a shiur from Rav Wolfson zt"l

2010-02-26T10:59:00.000-05:00

This year instead of writng my own dvar torah for Purim, I decided to reproduce I shiur that I heard from Rav Wolfson t"l in 5764. L'iluyei nishmaso here is the shiur.

I tried attaching the pdf file I sent out but it is too complictaed. If you want the pdf version (which is really the same thing here but I just used hebrew instead of english for some of the words) you can email me at cmarkowitz1@gmail.com

The gemara in Megilah 11b: explains that the reason Achashveirosh made a seudah was to celebrate the fact that Klal Yisroel had been in golus for 70 years and had still not been redeemed. Yirmiyahu had promised that the B’nei Yisroel would be in golus fro 70 years. Achashveirosh figured that the fact that the B’nei Yisroel were still in golus after 70 years must mean that HKBH had forgotten about them and they would no longer be redeemed. The gemara tells us that Achashveirosh miscalculated. We know that there were two stages of golus during the first Beis HamIkdahs. During the eigth year of Nevuchadnetzar’s reign he took Melech Yehoyachin and parts of Klal Yisroel into golus. Then 11 years later in his 19th year he took Melech Tzidkiyahu into golus and destroyed the Beis HaMikdash. Achashveirosh started counting the 70 years from the time of the first golus, when Yhoyachin went into golus. However, the gemara says, he should have started counting from the time that Yerushalaym was destroyed which was when Tzidkiyahu went into golus. The question that we can ask is what was Achashveirosh’s hava amina? Why did he initially think that the 70 years should start from the first golus, the golus of Yehoyachin. Furthermore, where did he go wrong? Why did the counting of the golus start from golus Tzidkiyau and not from golus Yochonya.?

The gemara in Makkos (22b) says “how foolish are people who stand for a sefer torah but do not stand for the talmidei chachamim who learn the Torah. In the Torah it says someone who is chayav malkos gets 40 lashes, and the chachamim came along and said it means 39 lashes” From here we see that talmidei chachamim are to be considered more chashuv than a sefer Torah. However, the Parashas Derachim (Derech tzadikim Derush 24) asks that we find the opposite idea in a gemara in Kiddushin.The gemara in Kiddushin (31b) asks, “how do we know one must stand for a sefer torah”? The gemara answers we learn it from a kal v’chomer, if one must stand for those who learn the Torah, than kal ‘chomer one must stand for a sefer torah itself. It would seem that this gemara implies that a sefer torah is greater than a talmid chacham ,which is the opposite from what the gemara in Makko implies. The Parashas Derachim answers that it all depends on what type of talmid Chacham we are talking about. If it is a Talmid Chacham that just has the yediyos of the whole Torah, then the Torah is bigger than him. After all, since his whole kovod comes because of his yediyas HaTorah, so the Torah itself should be greater. However, if the talmid chacham, besides knowing the torah is also a morah hora’ah, i.e. he knows how to pasken and explain the Torah, then he is considered bigger than a sefer torah. A talmid chacham who can look at the Torah and explain 40 lashes really means 39 lashes, this type of talmid chacham is bigger than the Torah.

Based on the Parshas Derachim we can now understand why Achashveirosh thought that the golus should start from golus Yehoyachin. The Navi tells us that among those who went into golus with Yehoyachin were the “charash u’masgeir”. Who were the “charash u’masgeir “? Chazal tell us that these were the talmidei chachamim and members of Sanhedrin who were sent to Bavel during the first wave of golus. Achashveirosh understood the power of the talmidei chachamim . He realized, as we see from the gemara in Kiddushin, that when the chachamim have the ability to pasken and explain the Torah, that they are greater than the Torah itself. It is for this reason that Achashveirosh thought that the golus of the chachamim, the first golus, was more tragic than the second golus, even though the second golus culminated with the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. Therefore, it made sense to start the count of 70 years from the time the chachamim went into golus and not from when the Bayis was destroyed.

L’chorah, Achashveirosh’s cheshbon made sense. Why does the gemara say that he made the wrong calculation and he really should have started counting from the 2nd golus? What was his mistake? The answer is that at the end of Megillas Esther it says “Kimu V’Kiblu HaYehudim”. The gemara (Shabbos 88a) learns from here “Kimu mah sheh’kiblu kvar”-that B’nei Yisroel reaccepted the Torah that they had previously accepted at Har Sinai. In other words, there was another Kabbalas HaTorah during Yimei Purim. This teaches us that even in a time of golus, a time of hester panim it is still possible to have a kabbalas haTorah. The reason is that it is impossible for Torah to go into golus. Klal Yisroel can be in golus, but the Torah and by extension the Talmidei Chachamim who learn and teach the Torah, cannot be in golus. Wherever the chachamim are that is where the Torah is supposed to be. Based on this, it would then come out that the first golus of the talmidiei chachamim was not as bad as the 2nd golus because in essence the chachamim never went into golus. Therefore, the real golus only started from the golus of Tzidkiyahu and that’s when the seventy years should have been counted.

We can also add one more point. Yirmiyahu Hanavi in Eicha asks “Tivu B’Aretz Sh’areha”. The The Medrash Eichah explains that the gates of Yerushalayim were not destroyed because they showed kovod to the aron by opening their doors to allow the aron to come inside. Yirmiyahu was asking why is it that the gates of Yerushalayim were not destroyed because they showed kovod to the aron, while the talmidei chachamim who learn the Torah found in the aron were killed and sent into golus. The Parshas Derachim explains that the Medrash is referring to the Sanhedrin and takmidei chachamim who explain the Torah and pasken halacha. As we mentioned above, these talmidei chachamim are greater than the Torah and that is about whom Yirmiyahu was asking his question. The Parashas Derachim says that Yirmiyahu could not answer his question. However, perhaps we can answer based on what we said above. The golus took place before the zman of Purim of “kimu v’kiblu”. Therefore, the ma’aleh of chachamim who were mora hora’ah being greater than Torah did not exist. It was only after the zman of Purim did we have this ma’aleh.

Taanis Esther vs Tisha B'Av: Which one is more chamur?

2010-02-24T21:34:00.000-05:00

If you ask most people they will tell you that Ta'anis Esther is much more lenient than Tisha B'Av. After all, Tisha B'Av has the 5 restrictions and the Rema paskens that pregnant and nursing women don't have to fast on Ta'anis Esther. However, it is not so simple.

There is a machlokes Rishonim what the m'kor is for Ta'anis Esther. Some say it is a minhag patterned after the 3 fasts that Esther and Mordechai imposed on B'nei Yisroel before she met the king. However, the Ra'avad brought by the Ran in Ta'anis Perek 2 learns it from the posuk "divreio tzomos v'za'akasom". The Ra'avad is understood to mean that Ta'anis Esther has the status of Divrei Kabbala, just like the mitzvos of Purim.

The question is, what is the status of Ta'anis Esther when it is a nidche. The Avnei Nezer writes that the status of Divrei Kabbala only applies to 13th of Adar. When the fast is pushed back to Thursday, the 11th of Adar, it is a regular takana d'rabanan. The Avnei Nezer clearly understands that a ta'anis nidcheh is a different takana and is not tashluimin for the original fast. The Shvus Ya'akov disagrees and says just like we darshen "z'manim tuva" tolearn you can lein the megilla on the 11th thru 15th of Adar, we also use the drasha to tell us Ta'anis Esther can be the 11th of Adar m'divrei kabbalah. One could argue, that the Shevus Yaakov agrees with the Avnei Nezer in principle that that a ta'anis nidcheh is a different takana and is not tashluimin for the original fast. However, by Ta'anis Esther we have a drasha telling us the nidche fast is included in the divrei kabbalah. However, by other fast days-like Tisha B'Av, he would agree it is a lesser status than the original fast.

The halacha is that a Ba'al Bris can eat when Tisha B'av is nidcheh. How about on Ta'anis Esther? According to teh Shvus Yaakov one could argue that Ta'anis Esther that is nidcheh is still divrei kabbala and a Ba'al Bris could not eat unlike Tisha B'Av nidcheh which is a lesser status than the original day.

Baruch Dayan Emes.

2010-02-21T23:29:00.001-05:00

The great talmid chacham, dayan and poseik HaRav HaGaon Rav Issur Wolfson zt"l was niftar this past Friday night. I generally try to avoid writing personal topics on my blog, but in this case I feel I must make in exception. It is a tragedy to his family (his 2 youngest sons are not even Bar Mitzvah), to our community of Passaic and to Klal Yisroel. We lost a giant today, and I feel it is only proper to mention a little about him. It is not an exaggeration to say that he literally had kol hatorah kulo at his fingertips. It wasn't just Chumash, Rashi, Ramban and Ohr HaChaim. It was Shas, Rishinim, Achronim , Shulchan Aruch and Psokim. It was Yerushalmi, Medrash and Zohar. Mussar Seforim, machshava seforim, and everything in between, both nigleh and nistar. I know after people die, the maspidim like to exaggerate. I can guarantee you that when I say he knew kol hatorah, both nigleh and nistar that it is not an exaggeration. A friend of mine used to learn with him once a week, and he told me that a number of times they would come across a medrash and Rav Issur zt"l would say, I never heard of that medrash. He didn't mean that the medrash exists just he hadn't learned it yet. What he meant was that we don't have that Medrash- it is not found anywhere in our editions at all. As more than one of the maspidim said at the levaya, he was a walking sefer torah. Someone who lived and breathed Torah. When he would walk in the street you could tell his mind wasn't in this world, but rather he was absorbed in whatever sugyah he was learning.

I was zocheh to have a personal kesher with Rav Issur zt"l and I just want to share a few points so that others might appreciate what we lost.

My connection to Rav Issur zt"l started about 8 years ago, shortly after I had moved to Passaic. He started giving chumash shiurim, and I was zocheh to be one of those that attended the shiurim. He gave these shiurim for 3 years and for the last 1.5 years I was the only one going. He would come into the shul , I would take out my notebook and tape recorder and he would say the shiur. I asked him a few times if he wanted to stop giving the shiurim, and he told me that as long as one person comes it is k'dai to continue. Although he only spoke for 30-35 minutes at a time, he was able to pack so much into each shiur, that to properly explain each shiur could take a couple of hours. He would weave together gemaras and medrashim along with a zohar or a GRA and sometimes even a Ramban to come up with unique and creative insights into the parshah. On more than one occasion he even made diyukim in some of the piyutim that we say in davening. Many of us don't even say the piyutim and even if we say them, we have no idea what they mean. Rav Issur zt"l not only knew them and understood them but he was even able to darshen them!

Besides his gaoness in Torah, he was a gaon in anivus. I believe it was Rav Meir Stern the Rosh Yeshiva of Passaic, who said over that it wasn't pshat that he was a gaon in Torah and also an anav. But rather his anivus was part and parcel of his gadlus. I would venture to say that 80% of Passaic either never heard of him or did not fully appreciate who he was. On the one hand this is a crying shame. On the other hand this is a perfect reflection of who he was-a gaon in anava who had not the slightest interest in being famous. I personally experienced this many times when I would ask him a shailah. I still remember I was once walking with him in the street and I asked him a shailah. He told me that he once answered a shailah in the street and he realized afterward that he made a mistake. From then on he decided not to answer a question in the street. I can guarantee you that he knew the answer. But his anivus would not let him answer me right away. Most of the time I asked him a shailah he would tell me to bring him a shulchan aruch or a mishna berura. Without missing a beat he would open to the page and tell me the answer. He didn't need the sefer to answer the question. He needed the sefer to protect his anivus. His son in law mentioned that everyone knew you could ask him where to find any gemara in Shas. However, when he would answer you he would always tell you it could be found 2-3 blatt away from the right daf. He didn't want to come across as a ba'al gava'ah.

I once saw an interesting idea from Rav Yaakov Hillel. He writes that most people think a tzaddik nistar is someone who looks pashut and simple but is really a tzaddik. This is wrong. Rav Hillel writes that a tzaddik nistar is someone like Rav Shach zt"l. How could this be? We all know what a great gaon Rav Shach was. The answer is that a tzaddik nistar is someone who even though you think you know his gadlus, there is ten times more you don't know about. As much as you think you know him, you really don't. In my mind, Rav Issur was a tzaddik nistar. For all that we knew about him, there was so much more that he kept hidden and private.

We lost so much with his petirah. In my mind it is like a spiritual 9/11. Who knows how much beracha and shemirah he was providing to Passaic and Klal Yisroel. We have now lost it. Rav Meir Stern summed it up so succinctly when he said that it is incumbent on all of us to make up for the loss of his Torah. He was such a giant that it seems almost impossible . HKBH should grant a nechama to his family, to his community and to Klal Yisroel.

Parshas Yisro:Zachor V'Shonar_Trei Kalei Lo Mishtamai

2010-02-12T12:40:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in awhile so I thought I would put something up before Shabbos.

Last week I discussed the issue of trei kalei lo mishtamai. The gemara learns it out from the fact that zachor and shamor were said at the same time and this is called a neis because it is impossible to hear 2 things at once. The gemara says the only exception is where you ar ehearing something that is chaviv like megilla or tekias shofar. There is a machlokes Rishonim why chaviv works. The Ritva says you are able to concentrate on one voice. The Ran says you hear both voices but you can understand both of them. A nafka mina is found in the Biur Halacha in Hilchos Shofar. If you hear 3 kolos from 3 people at the same time have you heard 3 kolos or 9 kolos? According to the Ritva we would say you only heard 3 but according to teh RAn you could say you heard all 9. The Mishna Brerura is machmir like the Ritva.

I famous issue that comes up based on this rule is how many people should say kaddish at one time. The Binyan Tzion and Chasam Sofer felt only one person should say kaddish because of trei kalei lo mishtamai. The Chasam Sofer held the point of saying kaddish was that it was a zechus for the niftar to have so many people answering amein. Since it is an issue of hearing kaddish the klal of trei kalei lo mishtamai applies here. Rav Ya'akov Emden in his siddur brings the minhag of sefardim to have everyone say kaddish. The Binyan Tzion argues that since sefardim daven togetehr it is easy to hear what everyone is saying and the rule of trei kalei lo mishtamai would not apply. Ashkinazim are not so unified and if everyone would say kaddish you wouldn't be able to understand anyone.

One could also argue that the ma'aleh of kaddish is in saying the tefilla regardless if people hear it so again the rule of trei kalei lo mishtamai wouldn't apply.

The Tzitz Eliezer seems to like the minhag of one person saying kaddish but he won't say it is wrong to do otherwise. Other poskim suggest everyone saying kaddish come to one area to minimize the problem.

Parshas Shemos:Shem HaMeforesh

2010-01-11T17:00:00.002-05:00

HKBH tells Moshe "Zeh shimi l'olam v'zeh zichri l'dor dor". The gemara in Kiddushin learns from here that one must pronounce the shem havayah with the shem adnus. The Brisker Rav and Rav Moshe both have the following chakirah:

When one says the shem adnus are you really reading the shem havayah or are you reading a different name of HKBH.
This chakirah can also be asked by a regular kri u'kisiv. However, both the Griz and Rav Moshe point out that the halacha by the shem hameforash is not the same as a kri u'kisiv. It is a different halacha which applies anytime you say Hashem's name.
Both Rav Moshe and the Griz hold that you are really reading the shem havayah. However, by a regular kri u'ksiv they disagree. Rav Moshe holds you are reading the word that is written while the Griz (Griz al HaTorah Parshas Va'Eschanan) holds you are reading a different word.

Nafka Mina

1) If part of the shem hameforash is covered with wax do you need to take out another sefer torah. Rav Moshe writes that if you assume the shem adnus is a different name than the shem havayah so you can argue that you were never reading the shem from the klaf. It was always ba'al peh. Therefore, even if the word is covered by wax you can still read it. However, since we hold that by reading the shem adnus you are really reading the shem havayah, so you must get another sefer torah. (According to this l'fi the Griz by a regular kri u'ksiv you would not need another sefer torah)

2) The Rambam in Hil Avodah Zara 2:7 has 2 opinions if you are chayav misa for being m'kaleil with the shem adnus. The Brisker Rav (al HaRambam AZ 2:7) writes that it is toloi on the chakirah. If by saying the shem adnus you are really saying the shem havayah then you are chayav misa, but if it is a different name than you woul dnot be chayav.

3) The Mechabeir and GRA in Orach Chaim Siman 5 argue what kavanah you need to have when saying shem Hashem in davening/berachos. The Mechabeir holds you need kavanah for shem havayah and shem adnus. The GRA holds that you only need kavanah for shem adnus (except for Shema where you need both). Achronim explain the machlokes is based on the chakirah. The Mechabeir holds shem adnus is same as shem havayah so you need kavanah for both. The GRA holds the shem adnus us a separate name and all you need kavanah for is shem adnus.

Motherhood:Parturition or Gestation revisited

2010-01-07T12:11:00.003-05:00

I just saw an article in the Jerusalem Post (hattip) that Rabbonim are now paskening motherhood follows the egg donor and not the one who gives birth. The article does not discuss what changed. See (here) for my original post.

Parshas VaYichi:Attempting To Do An Aveirah

2010-01-04T12:09:00.000-05:00

This week I spoke about an interesting Ohr HaChaim. Yosef told his brothers not to worry about having sold him since in the end it all turned out for the best. The Ohr HaChaim writes that this is similar to someone who tries to poison another person and in the end mistakenly gives that person a cup of wine. Since in the end of the day nothing bad happened the attempted murderer is patur even from dinei shamayim.

The Kli Chemdah among others asks that this is against a gemara in Nazir 23a. The gemara says that if a woman becomes a nazir, and drinks wine not knowing that her husband had previously annulled her vow, that she is still chayav malkos m’d’rabanan. The gemara compares it to someone who eats a piece of meat thinking it is chazir and in the end it turns out to be kosher. We see from here that one is punished for bad intentions even if they did not lead to any aveirah.

The Kli Chemdah answers that there is a difference between aveiros Bein Adam L’Makom and Bein Adam L’Chaveiro. By Bein Adam L’Makom, HKBH knows your thoughts and it makes no difference if you only thought about the aveirah or you did the aveirah. Even though we say you are generally not punished for your thoughts that is only where no action occurred. However, here, since you did an action, albeit a muttar action, you are still punished. By Bein Adam L’Chaveiro, since people only know your deeds and not your thoughts you are not punished for your thoughts.

Another teretz is found in the Beis Yitzchak Siman 8. He says if the end result was a dvar mitzvah then you don’t get punished. But if the end result is a dvar reshus you are punished. He says there is a Ran in Shabbos like this. I did find a rayah to this idea in Shut Sharei Deia Siman 36. The gemra in Sanhedrin says the cemetery workers who bury the bodies on Yom Tov should not get punished because they are doing a mitzvah.

L’halacha the Pri Megadim discusses if a person who thinks he is eating treife and winds up eating kosher, is he posul l’eidus. According to the Rambam (Hilchos Nezirus), such a person should get malkos d’rabanan and therefore he should be posul l’eidus. He writes in Teivas Gema Parshas Mattos that it depends on why we give the malkos. Rashi in Nazir says it is only l’migdar milsa so you would not be posul l’eidus. The Rambam implies it is to punish you for attempting to do an aveirah. In that case you would be pasul l’eidus. Tosafos holds like the Rambam in terms of why we would give malkos, but paskens we don’t give malkos in this case. According to both rashi and Tosafos you would not be pasul l’eidus although for different reasons.

Yosef's Shtar Kiddushin

2009-12-31T11:00:00.004-05:00

Rashi quotes the medrash that when Ya'akov saw Ephraim and Menashe he initially refused to give them a beracha because he didn't know who their mother was. It was only after Yosef showed Ya'akov his shtar kedushin and kesuva that Ya'akov agreed to bless them.

Two questions come to mind. First of all, what was bothering Ya'akov? Was he really concerned with who Yosef married? Shimon married someone fron Cana'an according to one pshat and Yehuda eventually married Tamar who did not have a great lineage. Furthermore, if Osnas was Dina's daughter didn't Ya'akov know that? Secondly, what did Yosef hope to accomplish by showing the shatr kiddushin and kesuva and how did this appease Ya'akov.

I believe the key to the answer is to understand what Ya'akov was trying to accomplish. The berachos that Ya'akov was giving Ephraim and Menashe were not just stam berachos, the intent of the berachos were to make them into Shevatim. In order to be considered Shevatim Ya'akov had to insure that they had the appropriate lineage. However, he wasn't concerned where Osnas came from, but rather he was concerned over what type of relationship Yosef had with Osnas-was it a real marriage or was she his pilegesh.

I heard recently a shiur from Rav Belsky that I found online, where he explains that when Ya'akov moved into Bilhah's tent his intention was to change his relationship with Bilhaha and Zilpah from being his pilagshim into being his wives. In other words he was koveia that they were no longer shifachos but had the status of imahos. The purpose of this was to ensure that all 12 sons would be fit to be shevatim. If Bilhah and Zilpah would retain their status of shifachos then their children would only be considered avadim and not part of the shevatim.

Reuvain did not understand this and he thought Bilhah was still his father's pilegesh-that's why the posuk says he slept with the pilegesh of his father. The Torah is describing the mindset of Reuvain. Rav Belsky further pointed out that after this ma'aseh, the Torah constantly refers to the shevatin as "12 sons of Ya'akov" and as "achim/brothers". The Torah is stressing this point that all 12 sons were shevatim and even the children of Bilhah and Zilpah were no longer considered avadim but shevatim.

With this idea, we can understand the whole conversation between Ya'akov and Yosef. In order for Ephraim and Menashe to be Shevatim, they couldn't be sons of a pilegesh. They had to be children of a real marriage. It's possible that even though Ya'akov was able to change the status of Bilhah and Zilpah (and consequently the status of their children) retroactively, when it came to Yosef's children he couldn't do that since they were already starting at a lower level having come from Yosef and not from Ya'akov. (You can also probably take issue with Rav Belsky's hanacha that originally Bilhah and Zilpah were only shifachos, maybe they were always imahos just Reuvain did not realize this).

The Ra'avad in Hilchos Ishus 1:4 writes that a pilegesh has kiddushin with no kesuva. The Maggid Mishna says this is also the Rambam's shittah, however the Lechem Mishna writes that from the Rambam in Hil' Melachim it seems the Rambam holds a pilegesh has no kiddushin and no kesuva. Either way, (although it works better with the Lechem Mishna), we can unde3rstand why Yosef responded by showing Ya'akov his shtar kedushin and kesuva. He wa sshowing Ya'akov that Osnas was his real wife andnot just a pilegesh and therefore his sons were fit to be made into shevatim.

(Ayin Sha'arei Aharon who mentions this idea as well)

Parshas VaYigash:Motherhood-based on cconception or childbirth

2009-12-28T15:06:00.004-05:00

OKay, I want to end this month with more than one post, so I will stop being lazy and post my latest chaburah.

Rashi on the posuk "Shaul ben HaCana'anis" brings the medrash that Shaul was the son of Dina and Shimon. The question is that even a Ben Noach is not allowed to marry his maternal sister. How then could Shimon marry Dina. One approach to answer this question is to use another medrash. The Targum Yonason Ben Uziel tells us that when Leah was pregnant with her 7th child she davened to Hashem that it should be a girl. At the same time, Rochel was also pregnant. Hashem caused the fetus in Leah to be switched with the fetus in Rochel. Rochel gave birth to Yosef and Leah gave birth to Dina. Since Dina was conceived in Rochel's womb you can argue that her mother was really Rochel. Consequently, she was muttar to marry Shimon.

In case you think that this is all derush, there is a very important halachic nafka mina. When a baby is born in-vitro or through a surrogate mother, who is considered the mother -the one who supplies the egg and conceives the child or the one who gives birth to the child. (or in the word of Rabbi Bleich is motherhood defined by parturition or by gestation).

There are a number of teshuvos/articles written on this topic. Rabbi Bleich has an extensive article in his Contemporary Halacha vol 4. Techumim vol 5 also has a discussion on this topic. Finally, there is also an article in the Jouranal of Halacha and Contemporary Society vol 38.

Just to note, we are not discussing whether it is muttar l'chatchila to do such a thing, only b'dieved if it was done who is the mother.

I will just bring 1-2 proofs for each side of the equation.

Parturition or Childbirth

1) The Tzitz Eliezer quotes the sefer Tzur Ya'akov who actually wants to bring a rayah from the Yonason ben Uziel quoted above. However, the rayah is in the opposite direction. Since the torah lists Dina as Leah's daughter and Yosef as Rochel's son, we see that motherhoood is based on teh woman who gives birth to the child.

Rav Shternbach in an article in a medical torah journal called "b'shvilei u'refuah" argues that you can't bring a rayah from derush. Furthermore, there is another pshat, that the fetus' weren't switched but rather the neshamos were switched.

2) The sefer Even Yakar (quoted by the Tzitz Eliezer) discusses a case of an ovarian transplat (which seems to have never happened) and he brings a rayah from a gemara in Sotah 43B. The gemara says that if you graft a tree less than 3 yrs old onto a tree that is older than 3 years, the new tree is patur from orlah. We see you follow the mother who gave birth.

3) Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg in Techumim vol 5 brings a rayah from Yevamos 97b. The gemara discusses a case of a non Jewish lady who converts when she is pregnant and then has twins. The gemara says these twins are considered brothers and there is a chiyuv yibum since at birth the mother was Jewish. Again we see you follow childbirth.

Gestation/Conception

Rabbi Bleich brings a Rabbi Akiva Eiger (also quoted in the Chavtzeles HaSharon on Vayigash) in Yorah Deia (SIman 87) as a proof that we follow conception. The halacha is that milk from a shechted animal can not create an issur basar v'chalav because we need "chaleiv imo"=milk from an animal who can be a mother. A shechted cow can not be a mother. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks what is the din with a cow that is a treifa. Such a cow can not give birth but it can conceive. He says in such a case the cow is considered a mother. From here we see that motherhood follows conception.

Parturition and Gestation

Rabbi Bleich wants to say that both women are considered the mother. By kilayim of animals, the gemara says "choshishin l'zera ha'av" and the animal is considered to be a species from the father and the mother. Here too, the women who conceived contributed to this child and she should also be considered the mother.

According to the Jouranal of Halacha and Contemporary Society most poskim say the one giving birth to the child is the mother. But as always ask your local Orthodox poseik.

Parshas Vayishlach:Do you need a kli for the Menorah

2009-12-08T14:57:00.002-05:00

The Avnei Nezer (Siman 500) discusses whether one needs to use a kli to light the menorah. The Chessed L'Avraham brings down 15 madreigos of a menorah, the best being gold then silver, copper etc. He then writes that one can not use egg shells because it is not a kli and also you can't use a kli that can't support itself. The Avnei Nezer paskens like the Chesed L'Avraham. He tries to prove that in the Beis HaMikdash, the kli used to hold the oil was considered a chelek of the ner of teh menorah and therefore, by Chanuka as well one needs a kli to hold the oil.

There are several chumros that come out of this.

1) One can not use a hollowed out potato to hold the oil since food is not m'kabeil tumah and is not considered a kli. (l'fi zeh tzarich iyun on the Holocaust stories where they were moser nefesh to put oil in a potato and light it. Acc. to the Avnei Nezer they were not yotzei).

2) If the kli can't stand by itself it is not a kli. Rav Shternbuch (Teshuvos V'hanhagos chelek 2) also paskens like the Avnei Nezer and he says that most of the glass cups we use are no good. Most of the cups we use have a nipple on the bottom and they can't stand on their own. Accordingly, they would not be considered a kli and you would not be yotzei ner chanuka.

3) If one has a gold menorah but uses glass cups, you would lose the hiddur of using a gold menorah, since you are really lighting with the glass.

4) If you just stuck candles down on the table you would not be yotzei.

Other than the Avnei Nezer and Rav Shternbuch, the other poskim I saw are all meikil for different reasons.

1) The Shevet Levi argues on the whole dimyon to the menorah in the Beis HaMikdash. Even if the Avnei Nezer is correct that in the Beis HaMikdash the kli is a chelek of the ner, who says that we would say teh same by the Chanuka menorah. The menorah in the Mikdash could not be made out of wood and only had 7 branches, while our menoros can be made out of wood and have 8 branches.

2) Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l in Halichos Shlomo says that the glass cup is batul to the menorah. Therefore, as long as the menorah can stand by itself, it makes no difference if teh glass cup can stand by itself. Furthermore, if the menorah is gold, you would still get the hiddur of using a gold menorah.

3) The Sdei Chemed (Mareches Chanuka Os 7) says that if the kli was originally made so that it couldn't stand it si not a chisaron in the kli and it is still considered a kli. The rayah is from a mishna in keilim. I also saw this brought down in a sefer on Hilchos Chanuka and the comparison was made to nitilas yadayim. By nitilas yadayim, we pasken if the cupo can't stand on its own but it was made liek that , it is still a kli. So hu hadin by Chanuka. Rav Shternbuch mentions this dimyon but he rejects it. I don't understand his sevara for rejecting it, but ayin sham.

4) The Az Nidbiru (chelek 13 Siman 49) points out that the Avnei Nezer brings Rishonim who are choleik on teh Chesed L'Avraham, namely the Radvaz, the Rashba and the Ran. Also, the poskim never indicate we should be machmir like the Chesed L'Avraham.

5) The Chacham Tzvi writes that one is yotzei if you stick candles on the wall. We see he didn't require a kli.

6) Finally, the Az Nidbiru (chelek 13 Siman 49) has a totally different understanding of the Chesed L'Avraham. When the Chesed L'Avraham writes that the kli must stand by itself, that is only because otherwise there won't be enough oil b'zman hadlaka to last the shiur.

Parshas Chayei Sara:Punishment for those under 20 years old

2009-11-16T13:50:00.003-05:00

I haven't had a chance to post my shiurim from the previous weeks. I decided I'll start with this week and work backwards.

Rashi quotes the medrash that Sorah had no sins at age 100 just like she had none at age 20. The medrash says that the reason Sorah had no sins at age 20 is because less than 20 a person is not punished b'dinei shamayim. The question is what does this mean and are there other m'koros besides this medrash.

The gemara in Shabbos 89B mentions this idea. Hashem wanted to destroy the B'nei Yisroel and part of Yitzchak's arguement in favor of the B'nei Yisroel was that for the first 20 years of a person's life they don't get punished.
The Rambam in Sanhedrin Perek 7 peirush hamishnayos also says we have a mesorah that under 2o there is no chiyuv kareis.

The Mizrachi in Chayei Sora also writes that this halacha applies to kareis. He says even though the Rambam mentions that one is who over 13 is chayav for malkos and kareis, he means that there is only a chiyuv malkos from age 13.

The Noda B'Yehuda and the Chida in Torah Lishma explain that this halacha applies to all chiyuvim b'dinei shamayim and not just kareis. However, they both point out that it applies b'olam hazeh. A person under 20 will not get punished in this world b'dinei shamayim. Once a person dies, you will get punished for aveiros you did under 20. Furthermore, you will also be held responsible for the aveiros you did as a koton, unless you did teshuva when you got older.

Finally, the CHasam Sofer and Chacham Tzvi both reject this whole idea. The Chasam Sofer says we don't find anywhere in halacha that a person under 20 is not punished. The gemara in Shabbos is aggadata and we don't learn from aggadata.

Bereishis:The Mitzvah of Kiddushin

2009-10-20T09:53:00.003-04:00

This past week I spoke about the mitzvah of kiddushin. In this week's parsha is the mitzvah of peru u'rivu. The question is how does kiddushin fit in? Is this also a mitzvah? There are 2 main opinions in the Rishonim.

Rambam

The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 1:2, Sefer HaMitzvos 213) states clearly that kiddushin is a mitzvah. He counts the mitzvah of peru u'rivu and kiddushin as 2 mitzvos. According to the Rambam, if one wants to create a relationship with another person, it is a mitzva to do it through the mechanism called kiddushin.

The Kesef Mishna quotes Rav Avraham ben HaRambam who explains that the Rambam holds kiddushin and nisuin is one mitzvah. Kiddushin is considered the beginning of the mitzvah and nisuin is the end of the mitzvah. The KEsef Mishna is m'dayeik from the way the Rambam lists the mitzvah in his header. He writes "the mitzvah of nisuin through kiddushin and kesuva". I think you can add a diyuk from the sefer hamitzvos where the Rambam writes "it is a mitzvah livol isha through kiddushin". You see the entire process is the mitzvah.

You can contrast this with the Sefer HaChinuch who writes the mitzvah is to be m'kadeish an isha through kesef,shtar, biyah. He makes no mention of nisuin.

Rosh

The Rosh in Kesuvos (perek 1 siman 12) says kiddushin is not a mitzvah. He says if one wants to be m'kayeim peru u'rivu yuo can do it through a pilegesh, you don't need to get married. In fact it's not even a hechsher mitzvah like shechitah. By shechitah, you can't eat without shechitah, but you don't need kiddushin to be m'kayeim perui u'rivu

Nafka Mina

1) Birchas Eirusin

How do you understand the nature of the beracha on kiddushin? The Rosh writes it is not a birchas hamitzvah but a birchas hashevach. That is why the loshon of the beracha is not comparable to a regular birchas hamitzvah. We don't say "asher kidishanu l'kadesj isha". Plus we mention the issur arayos. We never find that we mention the issur in a birchas hamitzvah. Finally, that is way the beracha is said after kiddushin and not before, there is no requirement for oveir l'asiyason since it is only a birchas hashevach.

The Rambam (Ishus 3:23) says the beracha must be before the mitzvah due to oveir l'asiyason. In fact if you omit the beracha you can't say it after the kiddushin.

2) Mitzva Bo Yoser M'bishlucho

According to the Rambam we understand why the gemara says it's better to do kiddushin yourself. Since it's a mitzvah it is better to do it yourself. According to the Rosh why is it better? In fact the Netziv (Hemek Shailah Siman 165) says mitzva bo yoser m'bishlucho would apply to a hechsher mitzvah but only a hechsher mitzvah mentioned in the Torah (like Kovod Shabbos). A hechsher mitzvah not mentioned in the Torah does not have this requirement. Since kiddushin isn't mefurash b'kra there is no mitzva bo yoser m'bishlucho by kiddushin if it is only a hechsher mitzvah. (He uses this as a rayah against the Rosh).

You can answer the Rosh with a Ran in Kiddushin (Reish Perek 2). The Ran says mitzva bo yoser m'bishlucho applies to a man because it is assur to marry without seeing the woman. However, mitzva bo yoser m'bishlucho applies to the woman as well since she helps the man fulfill his mitzvah of peru u'rivu. You see the Ran holds like the Rosh that kiddushin is not a mitzvah but mitzva bo yoser m'bishlucho still applies.

Mazal Tov

2009-09-29T11:44:00.002-04:00

Mazal Tov to myself (are you allowed to wish yourself Mazal Tov), my wife and my six children on the birth of our new daughter/sister. Our new daughter, Avigayil was born this past Friday morning. Boruch Hashem both mother and daughter are healthy and doing fine and they made it home for Yom Kippur.

We now have 5 girls and 2 boys-hopefully by the time they are in the parsha the shidduch crisis will be solved and the boys side will pay for everything :-) .

Hopefully, we should only see nachas from her as well as all our other children.

Parshas Netzavim/VaYeilech: Blowing Shofar on Rosh HaShana

2009-09-14T14:19:00.002-04:00

The Shulchan Aruch paskens that we don't blow shofar on Rosh Hashana when it falls out on Shabbos (as it does this year). The reason the gemara gives is because we are afraid that one might carry the shofar in reshsus harabim and be oveir on the d'oreisa of hotza'ah. (This same reason applies for reading the megillah and taking the lulav). The question is, what happens if someone goes ahead and does blow shofar on Shabbos? Is he at least yotzei the mitzva d'oreisa of blowing shofar? It's understood that chazal made a gezeirah not blow shofar, but l'chorah the chiyuv d'oreisa still exists and if so why would one not be yotzei m'd'oreisa.

Nafka Mina
Before I get into the lomdus, there are actually several nafka mina to this question.

1) The Aishel Avraham in Siman 600 (and also brought in the otzar meforshim peirush on the side of the shulchan aruch in Siman 588 says that if one blew shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashana then one does not make the Shehechiyanu on the second day. Since the beracha was made the first day there is no need to repeat it.

2) The Chachmas Shlomo (Siman 588) discusses a case where someone blew 2 set sof tekia teruah tekia but not that third set. This person is in limbo. .He was oveir on the d'rabanan of blowing shofar on Shabbos but he was not yet m'kayeim the d'oreisa since m'd'oreisa you need to blow 9 sounds-3 sets. The question is do we allow this person to blow 1 more set to be yotzei m'd'oreisa.

3) Chazal never made the takana in Yerushalayim in front of beis din. There is a machlokes rishinim what kind of beis din you need. The Rif paskins that all you need is a beis din of 3 people and you can blow in Yerushalayim. In 1881 (Rosh Hashana 5642) Rav Shlesinger wanted to blow shofar on Shabbos in Yerushalayim. In the sefer Ir Hakodesh V'HaMIkdash, Rav Tukitchinsky discusses the 2 sides of the issue. He writes that initaially Rav Shlesinger had 23 rabbonim on his side but in the end most of them backed out and only a few rabbonim blew shofar. He also quotes the gabbai of Rav Shmuel Salant who said that Rav Shmuel Salant would not pasken it is muttar but he wouldn't be mocheh against someone who went to hear the shofar. Fimally, Rav Tukitchinsky quotes the Aderes who said in 1903 that it was a shame Rav Shlesinger is not around to blow shofar on Shabbos since he would go behind a wall to hear him.

This leads us to the 3rd nafka mina. What would happen if someone blew shofar on Shabbos illegally-could one go hear the shofar and be m'kayeim a mitzva m'd'oreisa.

The Lomdus

The lomdus is very simple. In fact Rav Elchanan in Kunteres Divrei Sofrim Siman 3 discusses this issue. When chazal were okeir a mitzva m'd'oreisa b'shev v'al ta'aseh were they okeir it completely and therefore even if you do the mitzvah m'd'oreisa you don't get a mitzvah or do we say that the mitzvah d'oreisa still exists. It's just that now I have 2 competing mitzvos. On the one hand I have the mitzvah to blow shofar. On the other hand I have the mitzvah to listen to the chachamim. Which mitzvah takes precedence? Rav Elchanan explains that we say "shev v'al ta'aseh", don't do anything. In this case it would mean don't blow the shofar.

Rav Elchanan has a few nafka mina and rayas from various gemaras for each tzad. ayin sham.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger seems to take a clear stand on this issue. In derush v'chiddush (ma'areches 8) he says that if you blow shofar on Shabbos you get a mitzva m'd'oreisa.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi Siman 88 and Mikroei Kodesh) asks that there is a Tosafos in Sukkah (3a) against Rabbi Akiva Eiger. If one sits ina sukkah and the table is in the house, you are not yotzei. Tosafos says you are not yotzei even m'd'oreisa because the rabanan have the ability to be okaeir the d'oreisa and you are not m'kayeim any mitzvah. The Ran disagrees with Tosafos and holds you are yotzei m'd'oreisa, but al kol panim, how can Rabbi Akiva Eiger go against a Tosafos. (Interestingly, Rav Elchanan never mentions this Tosafos). Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank wants to learn that the m'kor for Rabbi Akiva Eiger is from a different gemara and Tosafos is learning like a shitta that we don't pasken like (ayin sham).

I found in the journal HaPardes from 1960 that the Siridei Eish discusses this as well. He asks on Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank that we pasken like Tosafos. Therefore, whatever answer you give for Rabbi Akiva Eiger has to address Tosafos since that is how we pasken. He answers that there is a difference between sukkah and shofar. By the case of sukkah, chazal possuled the sukkah itself. In such a case we would say that you are not yotzei m'd'oreisa since you are not sitting in a sukkah. By shofar, they didn't possul the shofar but rather invalidated your act. However, your act of blowing teh shofar might not be good m'd'rabanan but it is good m'd'oriesa.

In Mikroei Kodesh, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank does seem to mention this teretz but he doesn't stick with it.

Also, if you look in the Rishimus Shiurim on Sukkah, the Rav learns the Rambam not like the Siridei Aish. He is m'dayeik in the Rambam that it is not a p'sul in teh cheftzah shel sukkah but teh ma'aseh is not a mitzvah,

Spam in comments

2009-09-09T09:53:00.001-04:00

I've been getting some spam comments recently. Does anyone know how to prevent this from happening?

Blowing Shofar on Shabbos

2009-09-08T15:19:00.002-04:00

The SHulchan Aruch paskens that a shofar is a kli sh'melachto l'issur on Shabbos and mutar l'tzorech gufo and m'komo. I was wondering why it is not muktza machmas chisaron kis since we would never use it for any other purpose.

I saw that the Shmiras Shabbos quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach Zt"l who makes this point. B'zman hazeh a shofar would be muktza machmas chisaron kis. It was only in the days of the gemara and Shulchan Aruch where they used it for other purposes that it was considered a kli sh'melachto l'issur

Tefillin as a Kli Gever

2009-09-08T14:54:00.002-04:00

My father pointed out to me that the Targum Yonason Ben Uziel writes that tzitzis and tefillin are considered bigdei ish and are part of the issur of "Kli Gever". Most of us are aware of the claim that Rashi's daughter's wore tefillin. However, even if this is not true we do find in teh gemara that Michal bas Shaul wore tefillin and the chachamim did not protest. Furthermore, the Rambam paskens (Tzitzis 3:9) that women are allowed to wear tzitzis if they deisre. It would seem that the gemara and the Rambam argue on the Targum Yonason Ben Uziel.

Perhaps the machlokes is based on how to view tefillin. In general the issur of lo silbash kli gever is limited to when one wears the clothes as a malbush or tachshit. For example, if a man would wear a woman's raincoat to protect himself from the rain then there is no issur-he is wearing it for protection and not as a malbush/clothing. Similarly, a man can wear his wife's ring in order to keep it safe. (l'moshel-his hands are full and he has no pockets so the only safe place is on his finger). Again he is not wearing it as jewelry so it is mutar.

The question might be how do we view tefillin? Is it considered a tachshit or an article of clothing or is it something that we wear only to perform the mitzvah and it doesn't have the status of clothing or jewelry. Furthermore, even if one argues that it is a tachshit, maybe that is only for someone who wears it all day. But if you put it on solely to perform the mitzvah, maybe it is not considered wearing a tachshit.

In preparing my shiur this week (yes the chaburah zman has officially started up again), a came across a Maharshag in Chelek 1 Siman 36. He is discussing whether there is an issur hotza'ah on Shabbos if you wear something that is assur to wear-for example tefillin. He writes that tefillin in of themself are not considered a malbush or tachshit. We don't find that non Jews wear them. However, during the week it would be a tachshit for Jews who wear them for the mitzvah. However, this is only when one wears them for the mitzvah. If one does not wear them for the mitzvah-like on Shabbos then it would not be a tachshit but would be a masa-a burden and you would be chayav for hotza'ah on Shabbos. He then adds that the gemara says that if you find tefillin on Shabbos in the street you should wear them one pair at a time. However, he quotes the Magan Avraham (301:54) who says this only applies for a man. A woman would not be allowed to wear the tefillin since for her it would not be a malbush since she doesn't wear them during the week.

I guess what comes out of the Maharshag is precisely the opposite of what I wanted to say. According to the Maharshag, wearing tefillin for the mitzvah is a tachshit. The question is would that apply to the issur of kli gever as well?

Beracha Al HaNeis

2009-07-29T14:54:00.002-04:00

I was recently learning the 9th perek of berachos and the first sugyah is about making a beracha in the place where a neis happens. The halacha is (siman 218) that besides making a beracha on a neis that happened to klal yisroel (for example making a beracha by the yam suf), there are other situations that one would make a beracha.

1) Based on the Yerushalmi, we pasken that you make a beracha on a neis that happens to an adam chashuv like Yoav ben Tzruyah. The question is why. The Biur Halacha quotes the Elyah Rabba that someone like Yoav ben Tzruyah was the shaliach for all of klal yisroel. When a neis happened to him it was really a nes for klal yisroel and it is considered a nes shel rabim. B'zman hazeh we assume no such person exists and we don't make a beracha.

2) The Avudraham writes that we only make a beracha on an event that happend al pi nes. If it happened b'minhag ha'olom you don't make a beracha. He asks why do we make a beracha "sh'asa nisim" by Purim and Chanukah. He answers that Purim was a nes because the king went against the laws of the land and also he killed 80,000 people to please Esther. This is not monhag haolam and is a neis. Chanukah we only make the beracha over the nes of the oil and not the war.

This Avudraham is also interesting for a different reason. Some achronim (ayin Kuntres Chanuka U'Megillah) discuss whether the beracha of shasa nisim by Chanuka is a birchas hamitzvah or birchas hashevach. The Avudraham clearly takes the tzad that it is a birchas hashevach.

3) An individual wil also make a beracha at the place where a nes happened to him that saved him from harm. There are 2 opinions in the Shulchan Aruch whether the event that happend has to be through a real nes. It seems to me that there is a machlokes between the Mishna Berurah and Chayei Adam (siman 65 in Nishmas Adam), how to understand the opinion that one doesn't need a nes.

The Chayei Adam brings several proofs that we don't require that a person is saved through a nes but as long as he was saved "b'derech nes" he can make the beracha. For example, if a wall falls on a person and he really should have died but someone saves him so he wasn't saved through a nes but the fact that someone came and saved him was hashgacha pratis and it is "b'derech nes".

However, the Mishna Berura in the Biur Halcha learns a little differently. Both opinions in the Shulchan Aruch require that a person be saved through a nes. They only disagree what level of nes is m'chayeiv a beracha. The first opinion holds you need a real nes that is supernatural. The second opinion holds that even the fact that Hashem caused circumstances to happen to allow you to be saved is a nes. If robbers held you uyp and it just so happened that someone came by and saved your life-even though nothing supernatural happeend, that is a nes and since it is a nes you can make the beracha.

Although it seems like the Chayei Adam and Mishna Berura are saying the same thing, Ithink they are not. The Chayei Adam seems to be saying you don't need to define the event as a nes-as long as it happened in a way which we see yad Hashem and is b'derech nes, you can make the beracha. The Mishna Berura seems to be saying you must define the event as a nes.

I would like to add that perhaps they are arguing in the following chakirah. When we make a beracha at the yam suf that is clearly a beracha recognizing the fact that Hashem performed a nes for klal yisroel. How about when an individual makes a beracha on his personal nes? Is this also a shevach in recognition of the nes Hashem did or maybe it is a form of birchas hagomel. A regular birchas hagomel is thanking Hashem for saving you. Chzal were m'sakein that when Hashem saved you b'derech nes that you make a sh'asa nisim as well (when you pass by the place). It could be the Mishna Berura holds like the first tzad-it is only a beracha on a nes therefore you can only make the beracha if the event is defined as a nes. The Chayei Adam holds like the 2nd tzad, it is a unique form of birchas hagomeil and we don't care if the event that happened can be defined as a nes but rather did Hashem save you b'derech nes.

I have a few other nafka minas in this chakirah.

a) The Rivash writes that besides making a sh'asa nisim over an individual event, you also bentch gomel. His reasoning is based on a kal v'chomer, if I make a sh'asa nisim kal v'chomer I should bentch gomel. If Sheasa nisim is just a shevach in recognition for a nes Hahsem performed, what is the kal v'cho,er to gomeil-they are 2 distinct types of berachos. But if we say sh'asa nisim is a differeent form of gomeil the kal v'chomer makes sense.

b) There is a machlokes who makes this sh'asa nisim. Is it only the person's children and grandchildren or every generation. If the beracha is just a shevach over the nes so we can say all future generations make it-just like the beracha on the yam suf. But if it is a gomeil type beracha so maybe it is limite dto children and grandchildren since they benefit more directly than other descendents from the hatzalah so they can make the gomeil.

Korach and Yaakov

2009-06-29T10:15:00.002-04:00

I heard an interesting pshat in what Yaakov was mispallel for when he davened that his name should not be associated with Korach. Many times people do things, both good and bad, and people react by saying "Oh of course he did that, he is a descendent of Ploni. Yaakov was mispallel that after Korach did what he did, noone should say "of course Korach did that, he is Yaakov's great great grandson".

Summer Schedule

2009-06-29T10:12:00.003-04:00

I know they tell you that Torah is never on vacation. However, my chaburah is offically on summer hiatus. Being that we go upstate for the summer, I will not be home on Shabbos until after Labor Day. Being that I don't have a chaburah to type up, I don't know how much I will blog. I will make some attempt to post stuff but I make no promises.

Enjoy your summer.

Parshas Beha’alosecha:Lechem Mishna

2009-06-14T23:55:00.001-04:00

This week's parsha talks about the Mon. Even though the m'kor for lechem mishna is in Parshas Beshalach, I decided to talk about it this week. Specifically, I discussed whether lechem mishna requires to complete loaves of bread.

The Mechabeir in Siman 274 paskens that we need two loaves of bread for the Shabbos meal. The Rema adds that thy must be whole loaves. The GR"A points you to the gemara in Berachos 39b. The gemara says that by the seder the 2^nd matzah has to be broken to make it "lechem oni". However, by Shabbos you need 2 loaves. The GR"A is m'daeik that only on Pesach can you have half a matzah. On Shabbos and Yom Tov you need two whole loaves.

In truth this is a machlokes Rishonim. The Rosh in Pesachim says that even on Pesach night you need 2 whole matzos fro lechem mishna. Therefore, you take 3 matzahs. The Rif holds that on Pesach night 1 ½ matzahs is enough for lechem mishna. Pashtus in the Rif is that only Pesach night you don't need shlaimim, but every other time you do. However, the Netziv in the Meishiv Davar learns from the Rif that we see from the seder night that b'd'ieved you don't need shlaimim. In fact the Netziv is coming to explain his father in laws minhag of giving guests 2 pieces of bread for lechem mishna when he didn't have whole loaves.

To be continued

Test from Word

2009-06-10T21:35:00.001-04:00

I just realized Word 2007 lets you type a blog post and it will automatically send it to your blog. Very cool!

Parshas Naso: Can A Murderer Duchen?

2009-06-10T13:10:00.003-04:00

I am not sure why this topic intrigued me, but I really hope it is not halacha l'ma'aseh for too many people (aside from fighting in the Israeli army).

The gemara in Berachos 35a says that a kohein who kills can't duchen. Tosafos in Sanhedrin 38b brings 2 reasons why a kohein who kills can do the avodah but can not duchen. Either it is a chumrah or because of the rule "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor", since the kohein used his hands to kill someone, he can not use his hands to bless Klal Yisroel.

There are 2 questions raised regarding this second teretz of Tosafos.

1) The Aruch LaNer asks that the kohein gives a beracha with his mouth, not with his hands. So how come we say "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor"? He answers that we see from here that raising the hands is a cheilek of the mitzvah. In fact I saw brought down a rayah to this from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. He paskens that the beracha is said before the hands are raised because the beracha must be before the nmitzvah. We see from here raisng the hands is part of teh mitzvah.

2) The gemara in Rosh Hashana says that "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor" only applies inside the Besi HaMikdash. That is why the kohein gadol does not where bigdei zahav on Yom Kippur in the kodesh kedoshim, because it reminds HKBH of the eigel hazahav and "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor". However, a cows horn would not be pasul for shofar because of this reason since the shofar is blown outside the Beis HaMikdash. The achronim ask, if this is true why does "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor" apply here-a kohein duchins outside the Beis HaMikdash. The answer given (I believe it is a Pri Chadash) is that when the mitzvah is being done with the same object used to do the aveirah, then "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor"applies even outside the Beis HaMikdash. So here the hands that killed are teh hands that are giving the beracha.

Nafka Mina in Tosafos

1) There is a machlokes between the Mechabeir and Rema whether teshuva allows a kohein to duchen. The Mechabeir is machmir and the Rema is meikil. (The Biur Halacha seems to say we should be machmir for the Mechabeir unless it is a real oneis). I saw that this could be toloi on the 2 answers of Tosafos. If you hold it is only a chumrah not to duchen, then once a kohein does teshuva he can duchen again. However, if the reason is because "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor", then teshuva might not help. We know the B'nei Yisroel did teshuva for the eigel, yet a kohein still doesn't wear gold in the kodosh kedoshim. (you could be docheh this and say maybe the teshuva wasn't completely accepted)

2) another nafka mina is that the rule of "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor" could be a sevarah d'o'reisa. While chumrah is only m'd'rabanan.

Halacha L'Ma'aseh

The Piskei Teshuvos (Siman 128) discusses different issues (car accident, army etc). A couple of interesting questions are.

1) A kohein is drafted by his country and kills in battle.

Rav Moshe paskens that the kohein can duchen. The Mishna Berura paskens that even if someone violates yahrog v'al ya'avor and kills someone, since he was an oneis he can duchen. Therefore, Rav Moshe says kal v'chomer if you are conscripted into the army, you are an oneis and you can still duchen. I understand from Rav Moshe's comparison to yahrog v'al ya'avor that he is referring to a case of someone who kills a fellow Jew in battle.

2) Israeli soldier kills an enemy soldier

Rav Ovadiah Yosef says he can certainly duchen. First of all it is not clear if this issur applies to killing a nochri. Second of all you are defending yourself and klal yisroel and you are at worst an oneis. He does not discuss killing a fellow Jew through friendly fire.

3) Teshuva

The Piskei Teshuvos brings down that the Sefardishe poskim go with the Mechabeir and teshuva deos not work while the Ashkenazi poskim follow the Rema that teshuva does work. He does bring down that if you killed b'oneis like in a car accident where it totally wasn't your fault, then even Rav Ovadiah Yosef will allow you to duchen with teshuva.

Parshas Tazria/Metzora:Changing Your Sefira Minhag

2009-04-27T10:20:00.005-04:00

Being that we are in the middle of sefirah I decided to talk about sefirah rather than teh parsha.

There is a psak of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Chelek 1 siman 159) that everyone quotes that says you are allowed to switch your sefira minhag every year. People assume this to mean that if in 5768 I kept sefirah from Pesach until Lag B'Omer, then in 5769 I can switch and keep from Rosh Chodesh until Shavuous. However, as I pointed out in my shiur, if you read through the teshuva it is not so simple.

Background:

The reasons for the minhag

There are 2 different sources given for why we keep minhagei aveilus during sefirah. The first source is a medrash that says from Pesach until the 33rd/34th day of the omer the talmidim of Rabbi Akiva died. Therefore, we are noheig aveilus during these 33/34 days since these are the days they actually died. The second source is quoted in the name of Tosafos that really the talmidim of Rabbi Akiva died from Pesach until Shavuous. However, they did not die on days which tachanun was not said. This excludes 7 days of Pesach, 6 Shabbosos, and 3 days Rosh Chodesh (2 from Iyar and 1 from Sivan). That leaves 33 days during which the talmidim died. Since they died for 33 days, we choose 33 days during the Omer to follow minhagei aveilus.

The Various Minhagim

There happen to be 6 different minhagim mentioned in Shulchan Aruch and the poskim. However, to keep things simple we will refer to them in 2 groups-1st half and 2nd half. The 1st half minhag holds that one should keep sefirah from Pesach until the 34th day of the Omer. This is the opinion of the Mechabeir and according to this opinion Lag B'Omer is also one of the days in which aveilus applies. This minhag follows the medrash that the talmidim died from Pesach until 34 Omer and therefore we observe aveilus on the days they actually died. The 34th day of the Omer is included but we say miktzas hayom k'kulo and stop once they day begins.

The 2nd half minhag holds one should keep sefirah from Rosh Chodesh (30 Nisan) until 3 Sivan or from 2 Iyar until 5 Sivan. This is the opinion of the Rema in 593:2. This minhag follows Tosafos that the talmidim died from Pesach until Shavuous excluding the days on which tachanun was not said. The 33 days that are picked for aveilus are the days between Rosh Chodesh and Shavuous.

Minhag of Until Lag B'Omer

I purposely left out one important minhag until the end. This is the minhag the Rema mentions in 593:2. Remember that we said that the Mechabeir holds you keep aveilus until day 34 of the Omer. On this the Rema writes that we don't keep until the 34th day but rather we only are noheig aveilus until the 33rd day of the Omer. This is the minhag that many people have of keeping sefirah from Pesach until Lag B'Omer. Really Lag B'Omer is included but we say miktzas hayom k'kulo.

Now comes the big question. What is the reason for this Rema? Is the Rema following the medrash that these are the actual days that the talmidim died , but he argues on the Mechabeir regarding the 34th day of the Omer. Meaning the Mechabeir holds the talmidim died on day 33 of the Omer and on day 34 of the Omer, while the Rema holds they only died up to day 33 but by day 34 they had already stopped dying. This is the opinion of the GRA.

However, the Bach and Pri Megadim understand the Rema differently. They hold that the Rema is working with Tosafos. The talmidim died from Pesach until Shavuous excluding the days on which tachanun was not said, and we need to pick 33 days to observe aveilus. The 33 days that are picked are from Pesach until Lag B'Omer.

Nafka Mina

The nafka mina between the Gra and the Bach is the basis for Rav Moshe's psak. Rav Moshe writes that you can switch your minhag only if you are switching it to a minhag that follows the same reason. For example, lets say you usually keep Rosh Chodesh until 3 Sivan. You can switch and keep 2 Iyar until Shavuous since the reason behing both these minhagim are the same-both are based on Tosafos. However, one could not switch to the Mechabeir and keep until 34 Omer since that minhag is based on the medrash.

But can a person who usually keeps Rosh Chodesh until 3 Sivan switch to keeping from Pesach until Lag B'Omer (like the Rema). Well that depends. according to the Bach you can since both minhagim are based on Tosafos. Howeevr, according to the GRA you can't because the reason for keeping until Lag B'Omer is the medrash and the reason for keeping after Rosh Chodesh is Tosafos.

Rav Moshe says one should be machmir for the GRA and if one normally holds the 1st half (until Lag B'Omer) unless it is a sha'as hadchak gadol, you should not switch to keeping the 2nd half (after Rosh Chodesh).

Parshas Shimini:Chayav L'Taheir Atzmo LaRegel

2009-04-20T09:41:00.003-04:00

The possuk in Shimini 11:8 says "u'vnivlosam lo siga'u"-you should not touch a neveilah. Rashi brings the gemara in Rosh Hashana 16b that learns that the possuk is telling as the halacha that a person has to make himself tahor for the regel i.e. yom tov. The question is what is the geder of this halacha and does it apply today?

In lomdishe terms, we can kler the following chakirah. Is the halacha to be tahor for the regel a halacha in the beis hamikdash and/or bringing the korbonos. In other words, the only reason to be tahor is so that one can be oleh regel and go into the beis hamikdash and/or bring the required korbonos associated with yom tov. Or perhaps it is a halacha in kedushas yom tov. The kedusha of the day requires one to become tahor and to spend yom tov in a state of tahara.

These two tzdadim can be found in the rishonim.

Shittas HaRambam (Hilchos Tumas Ochlin 16:10)

The Rambam writes explicitly that the reason for this halacha is so that one will be able to enter the beis hamikdash. Clearly the Rambam holds like the first tzad.

Shittas HaRosh (Yoma Sof Perek 8)

The Rosh at the end of the 8th perek of Yoma writes that there was a minhag to be toveil erev Yom Kippur with a beracha. The Rosh asks where do we ever find such a chiyuv. It can't be from the halacha of chayav adam l'taheir atzmo laregel because that does not apply today. Since we can't be tahor from tumas meis there is no purpose in being tahor for the regel.

There are two ways to understand the Rosh.

1) One could learn that the Rosh holds that if we would have a parah adumah today, then one would be obligated to be m'taheir for the regel. However, the question is why? We have no beis hamikdash to go to and we don't have korbonos to bring, so why would one have to become tahor? Al karchach yuo have to say that the Rosh would learn it is a din in kedushas yom tov. However, it only makes sense to become tahor in honor of yom tov if you could be fully tahor. If there is no para aduma and we are still tamei meis, there is no chiyuv to go to the mikvah for yom tov. I saw that Rav Simcha Elberg has this mehalech in the Rosh.

2) However, the Shagas Aryeh (siman 67) understands the Rosh differently. He understands the Rosh that the chiyuv to be tahor for the regel is so one can bring the korbonos haregel. This is more in line with the Rambam's understanding of this halacha.

Meiri (Rosh Hashana 16B)/Likutei Sichos

The Meiri writes the chiyuv comes from the fact that one has to eat chulin b'tahara on Yom Tov. In Likutei Sichos, the Lubavitcher Rebbe says it is a din in "mikroei kodesh". Mikroei kodesh requires one to be tahor on yom tov in honor of the regel. It is similar to the Meiri. These opinions would hold like the second tzad in the chakirah.

Nafka Mina

1) Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur

Since there is no korbon on these days there would be no chiyuv tevilla. The likutei sichos says these days are called mikroei kodesh and therefore there is a chiyuv tevilla. The Tur in siman 603 also applies this halacha to Rosh Hashana.

2) Chol HaMoed

It is not called mikroei kodesh and therefore mtzad kedushas yom tov there might not be a chiyuv. If it is a din in mikdash or korbon it could depend on whether you fullfilled your chiyuv of korbonos. The Shagas aryeh says the shalmei simcha was a chiyuv everyday so yuo would have to be tahor even on Chol HaMoed.

3) Women

Women are not m'chyav in korbonos hachag, although there is a machlokes if they are m'chuyav in shalmei simcha. If they are m'chuyav in shalmei simcha then they would have a chiyuv to be toveil. If it is a din in Yom Tov, it could be they are included in this chiyuv.

4) B'zman Hazeh

According to the Rambam and the Shagas Aryeh's understanding of the Rosh this halacha definately does not apply today. Even acc to the understanding in teh Rosh that it is m'din Yom Tov, it would not apply today since we have no para adumah.The Likuti Sichos however does say it applies today. Rav Shternbach in Moadim U'Zmanim also says there is a mitzvah to be tahor from tumas keri even though we are still tamei meis.

Halacha L'Ma'aseh B'zman Hazeh

The Sedei Chemed (mareches cheis klal 47) brings various poskim on this issue. Most poskim feel it is not applicable b'zman hazeh. The Be'er Heitev in Yorah Deia 373 brings poskim who hold this way. Also, in Even HaEzer siman 55, there is a halacha that a bas kohein is allowed to be m'tamei to her fiancee. The Beis Shmuel comments based on a Rashi in Yevamos that on Yom Tov she can't because she has to be tahor for the Regel. Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Pischei Teshuva quote a Korbon Nesanel in Yoma that argues on this Beis Shmuel and says that this halacha does not apply today.

The Shoeil U'Meishiv wants to suggest that it applies today as a zecher l'mikdash. The Sefer Os Hi Meiolam is the only other poseik the Sedei Chemed brings who says it applies today because it is a din in kedushas Yom Tov.

Bottom line seems to be that most poskim would hold that the chiyuv to be m'taheir for the regel does not apply b'zman hazeh.

Parshas Tzav, Shabbos HaGoadol: Al HaGefen on the Four Cups of Wine

2009-04-07T10:11:00.004-04:00

Most of the discussion revolving around the four cups of wine we drink during the seder, tends to focus on what is the nature of this chiyuv, is it a din in cheirus, are women obligated, should one lean etc. However, there are a couple of interesting shailahs which come up that are relevent to everyday halacha, specifically in the realm of hilchos berachos.

Two shailahs that come to mind are the following. 1) why do we need to make a new beracha after each cup-why don't we say that just like the ha'adama of karpas works for marror, so too the hagefen of the first cup works for all cups. 2) what is considered to be the beracha acharona of the 4 cups. Is bentching the beracha acharona for cups 1&2 and the "al hagefen" after nirtzah works on cups 3&4 or would we say that "al hagefen" is the beracha achrona on all 4 cups.

Although these are interesting questions, I am not going to focus on them. I just mention then as an aside. The question I want to focus on is why don't we need to say "al hagefen" after the first cup. We pasken that if too much time has passed between eating and the beracha achrona then a beracha achrona can't be said. The amount of time is called a "shiur ikkul"-the time it takes for food to digest. We generally assume it is 72 minutes but the poskim point out that for a drink or quick snack the time can be shorter. I looked briefly in the Piskei Teshuvos and he brings down opinions that for drinking the time limit can be 30 minutes or as little as 11 minutes. However, even if one is meikil that you have 72 minutes, most of the time from the time you finish karpas until you drink the 2nd cup, more than 72 minutes have passed. If so, why don't we say al hagefen after cup#1?

There are a number of answers mentioned in the poskim.

1) Aishel Avraham M'Butchatch

The Aishel Avraham (Butchatcher) in 474:1 writes that where as the requirement for a new beracha rishina is based on hesach hada'as, beracha acharona is based on different criteria. If you have decided that the meal is over then you need a beracha acharona. However, if in your mind taht meal is still going on, even if a long period of time has elapsed, you don't need to say a beracha acharona. Therefore, at the seder everyone knows that there are more cups to be drunk and noone thinks they are finished for the night. Consequently, no beracha acharona is said.

The kasha I have on this is that thsi not pashtus in Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch says it is based on shiur ikkul not whether you finished your meal.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav

The Tzitz Eliezer (Chelek 12 siman 1 ) brings the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (siman 474) who says we don't make a beracha achrona on the first cup beacuse as long as the "stomach is open, the food doesn't digest". I understand this to mean that as long as you are still involved in eating (even if you are not actually eating) the food is not considered digested. I don't know if this is the same sevarah as the Eishel Avraham but it is close to the same idea.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l

Rav Shlomo Zalman discusses this in Mincha Shlomo Siman 18:11. It is also brought in the Halichos Shlomo on Pesach and in the haggada they put out with his chiddushim. He first bringe the mishna berura that it is assur to put yourself into a situation where you will lose out the beracha acharona. He says a possible answer is that how do we have kiddush b'mokom seudah during the seder. There is a hefsek between kiddush and the meal. He answers that the whole seder is one hemshech and is all connected to kiddush. Howeevr, he writes that if you would make an al hagefen you would break this hemshech and lose your kiddush b'mokom seudah.

Interestingly, it appears he wasn't convinced of this teretz because in his haggada it is brought down that he was makpid to eat less than a k'zayis of karpas during maggid. This way 72 minutes did not pass without eating. However, he did not tell others to do this and it appears it was his personal hanhaga. Furthermore, his son is quoted as saying that in his later years when he could not eat more karpas he would actually say an al hagefen.

The other interesting thing I picked up from here is that eating food works for liquids.

Rav Shternbach (chelek 1 siman 305)

Someone wanted to suggest that we drink less than a reviis of wine for the first cup. Rav Shternbach was very against this and quite adamant about not changing anything. He suggested that the reason there is no need to say al hagefen is because the shiur ikkul was only said for when you drink l'ha'na'ah. Herre you are drinking l'mitzvah and it is toloi on hesech hada'as. Also, if you say al hagefen it is hefsek from kiddush. The main thing is not to be motzi la'az on ourf minhag and this is our mesorah of what to do and since it is not mentioned anywhere to say "al hagefen we can't come up with kuntzim to change it.

Rav Elyashiv

I saw in Rav Elyshiv's haggada that he says that if you know that more than an hour will pass betwene karpas and cup #2 , then you drink some water or say al hagefen.

This is not like Rav Shlomo Zalman in 2 ways. 1) Rav Shlomo Zalman didn't pasken this way for others 2) Rav Shlomo Zalman ate karpas. Rav Elyashiv says drink water and don't know what he would say about eating karpas.

New Season, New look

2009-04-07T10:09:00.003-04:00

I decided to give my blog a new look. I figured with Nisan being the start of a new year and in honor of Pesach, it was a good time to redesign my blog. It wasn't even complicated-I just pushed one button and voila.

let me know what you think.

Parshas VaYikra:Birchas Hachama

2009-03-30T11:52:00.002-04:00

This week I decided to talk about Birchas Hachama. Initially, I had decided that I wasn't going to talk about it-after all anyone can pick up anyone of the many seforim out there and read up on it. However, I decided how can I not give a shiur on something that only happens once every 28 years.

I won't bother rewriting the cheshbon-it's available elsewhere online. I discussed an interesting question that relates to the calculation. The whole calculation is predicated on the fact that the sun was created in N Isan. Yet if you ask anyone they will tell you the world was created the last week of Elul, with Adam being created on Rosh Hashana.

The truth is that it is a machlokes in the gemara whether the world was created in Tishrei or Nisan. We pasken for tekufos (which includes birchas hachama) it was created in Nisan but for the years we say it was Tishrei. How can both be true? I saw 2 interesting answers.

1) The Maharam Shik writes that the world was really created in Tishrei. However, birchas hachama represents the spot in the sky where the sun would have been the previous Nisan, had the world existed in NIsan. He compares it to our calculation of the molad. Our molad does not start from the moment Adam was created but it is backdated a year to the moment it would have been had there been a world then (called molad tohu)

2) Rabbi Bleich brings a tertez from the Ohr Hachama that the medrash says originally the worl dwas moving at a fast speed. Afer the cheit of Adam the world slowed down. Therefore, we can say the world was created in Nisan but it moved so fast that by the time Adam was created it was Tishrei. Then once Adam ate from the eitz hada'as the world slowed down and it took 365.25 days to circle the sun.

Chiyuv of Women

The poskim discuss whether women can recite the beracha. The Chasam Sofer writes the minhag is for women not too say it. The Ksav Sofer wants to explain the reason based on the fact that it is a mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama. Furthermore, even though women are allowed to do
a mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama, the Magen Avraham in Siman 296 says that is only when there is a ma'aaseh mitzvah involved. If the entire mitzva is a beracha women are not allowed to say it. The Magen Avraham says this is why women don't make havdala or say kiddush levana. The Kesav Sofer says this is also why women don't say Birchas Hachama.

The arguement against this is that Birchas Hachama is not a mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama. It is based on a phenomenon and is a metzius. Therefore the Maharil Diskin among many other poskim said women should say this beracha. The Minchas Yitzchak writes he would follow the minhag of the Chasam Sofer except that the Maharil Diskin paskened for Yerushalayim and therefore in Yerushalayim women should say it. Interestingly, I found in the pesakim of Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnefeld who was also the Rav of Yerushalayim that women don't say Birchas Hachama.

L'ma'aseh it would seem it is based on your minhag. If you follow minhagei Chasam Sofer it seems a woman should not say it.

100 Berachos a day Part 2

2009-03-30T11:47:00.002-04:00

I just saw in ad for a new Mishna Berura with the pesakim of the contemporary poskim. The halacha highlighted in the ad was the following question.

If you finish seuda shlishis after tzais does bentching count for Shabbos or Sunday's 100 berachos.

In my shiur I mentioned that the Shevet HaLevi held it counts for Shabbos, since anyway you can argue the night follows the day. However, in the ad beside bringing the opinion of the Shevet Levi they also quote Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l who held it counts for Sunday's berachos.

Vayekheil/Pekudei:100 Berachos a day

2009-03-25T09:45:00.002-04:00

The Ba'al HaTurim on the posuk about the 100 sockets used in the mishkan, says this is a remez for reciting 100 berachos a day.

What is the mekor for this din. The gemara in Menachos (43b) learns it out of a posuk in Eikev "mah hashem shoeil" and "mah" can be read as meah (100). The Tur quotes Rav Neturai Gaon who says Dovid Hamelech instituted this takana as a way to stop a mageifa. However, the Chida in hi sefer Yosef Ometz writes something very interesting b'shem the sefer HaManhig. He says that really Moshe made this takana. However, it wes subsequently forgotten and Dovid came and reinstituted it. Then, this takana was again forgotten until chazal came along and again reinstituted it. Furthermore, I saw brought down (I forget where) that one could argue that both Moshe and Dovid were not mesakein 100 berachos-especially since they didn't have a nusach hatefilla at that time. Rather, they were mesakein to praise Hashem 100 times, in any format. Chazal were the ones who formulated that these 100 praises should be 100 berachos based on our nusach hatefiila.

One question raised in the poskim is does the chiyuv start at night or by day. I saw in a sefer that it could depend on the source of this din. The Kol Bo brings the m'kor from a posuk by the ketores. We know that by korbonos the night follows the day-you shecht during the day and can eat it that night. So if the m'kor is from the k'tores then we could argue the 100 berachos start by day and end at night. (The first beracha would be al nitalas yadayim/asher yatzar and the last hamapil). However, if we follow the m'kor in the gemara then this halacha should be like all other halachos where day follows night. The 100 berachos would start by night with ma'ariv and end at shekiah.

The Btzeil Hachachma says it is clear from the Beis Yosef and the Magen Avraham that we start at night. They both point out that on Shabbos we lose berachos due to our shortened shemoneh esrei ( we have 7 berachos and not 19). They both count the Friday night ma'ariv as being part of this deficiency. Now if the night follows day it would come out that the Friday night ma'ariv belongs to Friday and the Motzei Shabbos ma'ariv to Shabbos. The fact they include the Friday night ma'ariv as part of Shabbos shows you start counting by night.

The Btzeil Hachachma does ask a very interesting question on the Beis Yosef. The Beis Yosef in listing the 100 berachos, counts hamapil as the first beracha. Why doesn't the Beis Yosef count ma'ariv first? He answers that the Beis Yosef is using the loshon of the Yerushalmi. The tana in the Yerushalmi is R' Meir. R' Meir happens to hold you can daven ma'ariv and say shema before nightfall. Therefore, according to R' Meir ma'ariv belongs to the previous day and the first beracha is hamapil. The Btzeil Hachachma writes that l'ma'aseh if you daven ma'ariv early (during the week or on Shabbos), the berachos apply to the previous day and not the coming day. There are those that argue that Shabbos might be different because of tosefes Shabbos but that itself is not so pashut.

There are those that say you can listen to someone else's beracha and say amein and that this helps for days like Shabbos and Yom Kippur where you are missing berachos. However, it seems the better approach on Shabbos is to eat more foods.

One cute vort a saw b'shem R' Shmelke M'Nikilosberg is the following. The posuk in Shir HaShirim (8:12-13) says "alef lecha shlomo u'masayim l'notrimes piryo. hayoseheves baganim chaveirim makshivim lkoleich hashmieini"

The gemara tells us that a beracha is worth 10 gold coins, so 100 berachos is worth 1000 coins. Furthermore, on Shabbos we lose 20 berachos (ayin Beis Yosef) which is 200 coins

1) alef lecha shlomo: alef=1000 refers to making 100 berachos a day
2) u'masayim l'notrim es piryo: masayim=200. on Shabbos we need 200 coins (20 berachos) so we eat fruit
3) hayoseheves baganim chaveirim makshivim lkoleich hashmieini: Howeevr, those who can't eat enough food can it in shul (yosheves baganim) and answer amein to their freinds beracha (chaveirim makshivim lkoleich hashmieini).

Purim:Our Role As An Am HaNivchar

2009-03-06T09:47:00.004-05:00

As I was looking to see what I wrote about Purim last year, I realized I never posted it. So here is parts of my Purim dvar torah from last year Purim 5768/2008.

The Cheit of B’nei Yisroel
The gemara in Megilah 12B quotes in interesting conversation between Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and his talmidim.

The students of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai asked him, "why were the B’nei Yisroel sentenced for destruction". Rav Shimon Bar Yochai replied, "You tell me". His students answered "Because they derived pleasure from the feast of Achashveirosh. Rav Shimon Bar Yochai answered them back, ‘if that is truue then only the Jewso f Shushan should have been destroyed. Rather the decree was made because they bowed down to the idol during the time of Nevuchadnetzer’. His students then asked, "so why were the B’nei Yisroel saved?". He answered them, since they only served the idol out of fear and didn’t mean it, so too Hashem didn’t mean that the gezeirah should be permanent".

The Menos Levi in his peirush on the megilah asks what exactly was bothering the talmidim. He answers that the talmidim were aware that the Jews had sinned by bowing down to the idol of Nevuchadnetzar, however, they also noticed that they were not punished for it.
Therefore, they couldn’t understand why when it came to the seudah of Achashveirosh, they were punished.
Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s answer to them is that really the gezeirah of Haman was due to the aveirah of bowing down to the
idol of Nevuchadnetzar, however Hashem had rachmanus and didn’t punish them right away. It was only after the aveirah of eating from the seudah, did Hashem decide to punish the Jews.

The question still remains, what exactly was the connection between these two aveiros?. Why was it specifically the sin of the seudah that caused Hashem to revisit and punish the Jews for bowing down to the idol.

The Connection Between Avodah Zara and the Seudah
The Rambam writes that even though originally people viewed the sun and stars as messengers of Hashem, eventually they removed Hashem from the picture and they served the sun and stars directly. We see from the Rambam that avoda zara comes about when people break their connection with Hashem. When the world no longer sees Hashem as running the
world and being involved in their day to day life then the next step is to serve idols. Avoda zara is all about taking Hashem out of the equation and eventually denying His very existance.

The gemara says that the main reason that Achashveirosh made a party was to celebrate the fact that 70 years of golus had passed and the Beis HaMikdash had still not been rebuilt and that the geulah would not becoming. It is interesting to note that the gemara doesn’t say that the gezeirah came about because they ate at the party, rather it says they were punished for deriving benefit from the meal. Hahsem was upset that nop only did they attend the meal, but they also enjoyed their meal. They joined with Achashveirosh in celebrating the fact that they were no longer Hashem’s chosen people. If Achashveirosh was correect in assuming that the geulah wasn’t coming, then that meant Hashem had turned his back on the Jews and had cut off his connection with them. By attending the party, the Jews were admitting that they were equal to all the other nations and more importantly that they no longer had a unique
relationship with Hahsem.

We can now understand the connection between eating at the seudah and bowing down to the idol of Nevuchadnetzar. Both aveiros come from the same idea-breaking the connection with Hashem and removing him from the picture. For the nations of the
world, avoda zara breaks that connection on a global level. They refuse to recognize that the whole world is controlled by HKBH.However, for the Bnei Yisroel, this mindset is more devasting and personal. The Bnei Yisroel were not just denying that Hashem is the creator of the world, but they were also denying their status as the Am Hanivchar, the chosen people. If Hashem could just leave us in golus and totally abandon us, then that must mean he has severed His connection with us and we are no longer His children.
Because the root of these two aveiros were the same , that is why we were retroactively punished for bowing down to the idol only after we ate from the seudah.

Tikun HaCheit Thru Mordechai

It stands to reason that if the cheit was breaking the connection with HKBH, then the way to do teshuva was through reestablishing that connection. The person who led the Jews in doing teshuva was Mordechai. The Sefas Emes explains that in every generation there is one tzaddik who protects klal Yisroel and helps them do teshuva. Furtehrmore, even if
the generation does not do teshuva, there will always be one tzaddik who will be able to misakein the sins of everyone else. During this time period , this tzaddik was Mordechai. The Medrash compares Mordechai to Avraham. Just like Avraham re-introduced HKBH back into the world, so too Mordechai reconnected the B'nei Yisroel with Hashem.

(More later).

Mishpatim: Helping Unload an Animal

2009-02-23T11:31:00.005-05:00

In my shiur this week I spoke about the mitzvah of perika and te'ina. The mitzvah of perika is found in Mishpatim and the basic details are that one is obligated to help unload your friend's (or enemy's) animal. The mitzvah of te'ina is found in Ki Tzeitzei and it involves helping someone load his packages onto his animal.

Although it would seem that this mitzvah does not have much practical relevance, there are two issues that could apply in our society.

1) Does the mitzvah apply to helping a person?

There is a machlokes Rishonim whether this mitzvah applies to helping a person who is carrying or picking up packages.

Rashba

The Rashba (Shut Rashba Siman 252,256,257) holds that this mitzvah applies to helping a person. He brings several rayos. One rayah he mentions is that the gemara in Bava Metziah (30b) has a story where Rabbi Yishmael ben Isi helped a man carry his packages. The gemara asks why did Rabbi Yishmael do this, he should be patur because he is a zakein and it isn't befitting of his honor. The Rashba says, we see the gemara did not ask that he should be patur because the mitzvah does not apply to a person. It must be that the mitzvah applies to helping a person.

Both the Chinuch and the Rambam seem to hold this way because in mitzva 540 (by the lav of not helping someone) the Chinuch mentions that it applies to an animal and a person. The Rambam in Lav 270 also says it applies to a person.

Radvaz

The Radvaz (siman 765) argues on the Rashba. Interestingly, he brings a rayah from the fact the Rambam doesn't mention it in the Mishna Torah. He doesn't address the fact that it is mentioned in Sefer HaMitzvos. He also argues that a person is a ba'al sechel and if he took on to heavy a load, it is his own fault. He clarifies that he doesn't mean that there is no mitzvah of chesed or v'ahavata l'reiacha kamocha to help him, but that there is no mitazvah of perikah or te'ina.

How do we pasken

As mentioned the Rambam does not bring it in teh Mishan Torah. Furthermore, it is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch whether this halacha applies to a person. (Choshen Mishpat Siman 272 deals with this halacha).

I don't know if that means we pasken like the Radvaz or the Rashba/Chinuch/Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos.

One interesting nafka mina on how we pasken is the next issue.

2) Helping someone whose car breaks down

Is there a mitzvah of perika or te'ina to help someone whose car breaks down? (Obviously there is a mitzvah of chesed or v'ahavata l'reiacha kamocha)

L'chorah, this question only starts according to the Rashba. According to the Radvaz, since the mitzva only applies to an animal, there would be no mitzvah here either. However, what about according to the Rashba?

The Aruch Hashulchan paskens (Choshen Mishpat 272) that if someone's horse and wagon get stuck in the mud, or even if a wagon wheel breaks there is a mitzvah of perikah/te'ina to help him. The question is does this apply to a car?

I found on hebrewbooks.org that in the Torah Journal "Beis Aharon V'Yisorel", someone wrote about this. In Av-Elul 5759 volume 84, Rav Chaim Dishon wants to argue that the Aruch Hashulchan only applies to where there is an animal involved. One of his arguements is that the possuk only mentions donkey, and the gemara learns other animals from a limud and the Rashba learns a person from a kal v'chomer. But the Rashba's kal v'chomer can only be xtended to as person carrying a load. If it is a car, we don't have a limud in the gemara and we don't have a kal v'chomer. Also, he writes that the gemara requires the tzaar of the animal and the tzaar of the owner. Here we don't have tzaar of an animal. In a subsequent volume Kislev-Teves 5760 volume 86, someone named takes issue with this and argues that the mitzvah would apply to a car.

L'ma'aseh I don't know what the poskim would say.

Parshas Mishpatim:One Parsha or Two?

2009-02-23T11:27:00.002-05:00

I happened to see an interesting footnote in the MAchon Yerushalayim edition of the Minchas Chinuch. The Chinuch splits Parshas Mishpatim into two sections. Teh first section is from the beginning until the mitzvah of "kesef talveh" and the second section is from this mitzvah until the end. The footnote explains that in certain communities they were makpid to read Parshas Tazria before Pesach. In a leap year there are 29 weeks from Beraishis until Pesach but only 28 parshiyos. In these communities they split Mishpatim into two parts to make up for the extra week. According to the footnote, this is currently done in Algiera and Tunisia.

Parshas Va'Eira: Davening among idols

2009-01-27T09:55:00.004-05:00

In this week's parsha Moshe tells Pharoah that in order to stop the makka of Barad he has to daven outside the city. Rashi brings the mechilta that Moshe coulkdn't daven in the city because it was filled with avoda zara. The obvious question is, how about the other makkos? How come we don't find that Moshe left the city to daven for the other makkos?

There are several approaches to answer this question.

Ramban/Sifsei Chachamim

The Ramban says that ain hachi nami, Moshe did leave the city for the other makkos. However, by all the other makkos Moshe was able to wait until the next day to daven. By Barad, Pharoah wanted Moshe to daven right away. Moshe tehn had to explain to him that he had to first leave the city.

Da'as Zekainim

The Da'as Zekainim says that the avoda zara were the sheep. Until now all the sheep were outside the city limits. Before Barad, HKBH warned Mitzrayim to bring the animals into their houses or they would be killed. Consequently, all the sheep were now inside the city limits and Moshe had to leave the city to daven.

Netziv

The Netziv in his Shut Meishiv Davar (end of Chelek 1 Siman 10) writes that until now Moshe davened in his house. The house served as a mechitzah between Moshe and the avoda zara. Now that Moshe was davening outside he had no mechitza and had to leave the city.

Chevtzelas HaShoron

I also saw a teretz in the Chevtzelas HaShoron where he wants to distinguish between a bakasha and tefilla. Until now Moshe's davening was a bakasha but now it is a tefilla. Only tefilla has a problem of avoda zara. ayin sham to see his rayos and how he develops the mehalech.

Halacha L'Ma'aseh

How does this play out l'ma'aseh?

Terumas HaDeshen (Siman 6)

The Terumas Hadeshen discusses a case where someone is traveling. His two options for davening are either daven on the road or go to a non Jewish hotel that is full of idol worshippers. The Terumas HaDeshen answers that if one can daven on the road without anyone bothering him, he should daven on the road since the hotel will be full of avoda zara. He brings a rayah from MOshe Rabbeinu who went outside the city to daven. However, if he will be bothered on the road and he can fond a corner in the hotel in which he won't be disturbed , then he should daven in the the hotel. As far as the problem of davening among avoda zara, he says, since anyway our cities are filled with avoda zara it is okay to daven in the hotel.

Rema (Siman 94:9)

The Rema seems to bring this Terumas HaDeshen down l'halacha. However, as the Pri Megadim points out there is one major difference between the Terumas HaDeshen and the Rema. Whereas the Terumas HaDeshen is clearly concerned about davening among avoda zara, the Rema doesn't mention it at all. All the Rema says if you will not be disturbed on the road, then you should daven on the road since you will probably be disturbed in the hotel. He is not worried at all about avoda zara. It seems from the Rema that there is no issur to daven in a place filled with avoda zara.

Magan Avraham/Mishna Berura

The Magan Avraham however does bring down the reason of avoda zara. The Mishna Berura also brings it down. The Mishna Berura based on the Magein Geburim switches around a few words in the Rema in order that the Rema should be like the Terumas Hadeshen. He does add that you should daven in a different corner than the avoda zara even if it means not davening toward the east.

The way I understand the MIshna Berura is that if you can avoid davening in a room with avoda zara you should. But if you have no choice or your kavana will be disturbed it is mutar.

Hospital Rooms

A common shailah is daveing in a hospital room with avoda zara in it. I saw in the Piskei Teshuvos that he brings from the Atzei Chaim (Siman 1) and Chelek Levi that it is muttar. In fact the Cheelk Levi goes a step farther and says that if you work in such a building you don't have to leave to daven.

I would think based on the Mishna Berura it is also muttar. You can't be expected to leave the room and daven in the hallway. First of all if you are sick or just had a baby, your kavana would definately be better in the room. Second of all you will most probably be interrupted in the hallway and that is quivilant to the Terumas Hadeshen.

Building with two rooms

A case which I am not sure about is if you are in a hotel or building and the room you are in has avoda zara but another room doesn't. Furthermore, it is just as easy for you to go to one room over the other and noone will disturb you in either room, Would you be m'chuyav to switch rooms. On the one hand you do have the sevara that the whole city has avoda zara so what difference does it make which room you daven in. However, the mashmaos of the Terumas Hadeshen (and Mishna Berura) seems to be that l'chatchila you should avoid it if possible.

Parshas Shemos:Shnayim Mikrah V'eched Targum

2009-01-18T14:48:00.002-05:00

Divrei Machshava

The Levush writes that the first words of this week’s parsha “V’Eileh Shemos” is an abbreviation for “V’chayva Ish L’kros Haparsha, Shenayim Mikrah V’echad Targum” Before I discuss the lomdus behind this haalcha, I just want to start with some divrei machshava.

Why did the Levush pick this possuk to teach us the halacha of shanyim mikra? Theis is not the first time the words “V’Eileh Shemos are found in the Torah. For example, in Parshas VaYigash when Ya’akov goes down to Mitzrayim, the Torah writes “’Eileh Shemos”. I thought one can answer based on an idea found in the Ramchal and the Nefesh HaChaim. (This idea is discussed at length in the Sefer Mimamakim on Parshas Shemos). The Nefesh HaChaim writes that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah k’neged the 600,000 neshamos of Klal Yisroel. (Whether or not there are actually 600,000 letters in the Torah is irrelevant. The Maharal explains that 600,000 represents shlaimus-it is the most complete number. That is why Klal Yisroel are always referred to as having 600,000 people. This represents the fact that Klal Yisroel is shaleim. Anything more than 600,000 is just a tosefes bracha. What the Nefesh HaChaim means is that the shlaimus of Klal Yisroel is represented by the shlaimus of the Torah). The Ramchal in Derech Eitz Chaim writes that the 600,000 nefashos of Klal Yisroel are k’neged the 600,000 peirushim found in the Torah. Each member of Klal Yisroel has their own peirush in the Torah. L’aniyas da’ati the Nefesh HaChaim and Ramchal are driving at the same point. They are both explaining that there is a deep connection between Klal Yisroel and the Torah, as we say “Yisroel, V’o’reisa, V’Kudshah Brich Hu Chad Hu”.

Based on this we can understand why the remez for shnayim miukrah is davka in Parshas Shemos. Whereas Sefer Beraishis is the story of the avos-the foundation of Klal Yisroel, Sefer Shemos is the story of the development of Klal Yisroel. This development starts with Parshas Shemos with the story of shibud Mitzrayim. Therefore, since as we explained the Torah and Kal Yisroel are connected, the hint to shanyim mikrah is found in the place where Klal Yisroel starts.

Now onto the shiur…

Chakirah

(I heard this chakirah from my Rebbe along with the nafka minas).

Yesh Lachkor, what is the purpose behind the takana of shnayim mikra v’eched targum. Is it a halacha in Talmud Torah, that Chazal wanted us to finish the whole Torah once a year? Or is it a halacha in Kriyas HaTorah, in order to be prepared for that weeks leining, we are told to review the Parshah every week.

This chakira is actually found in the Terumas Hadeshen (Siman 22). The Terumas HaDeshen brings a machlokes whether one has to do shnayim mikra for Yom Tov. The Terumas Hadeshen quotes Rabbeinu Simcha that one does not have to do it. He says form here we see that the ikkar takanah of shnayim mikra was in order to learn the Torah once a year. Since the section leined on Yom Tov are already learned during the week of that Parshah, there is no need to learn them again. He then adds that those who hold that one must do shnayim mikra on Yom tov hold that it is a din in preparing for kriyas hatorah.

Nafka Minah

1) Yom Tov

As mentioned from the Terumas Hadeshen, one nafka mina is whether one must do shnayim mikra on Yom Tov or the four parshiyos.

2) Possuk by Possuk or Parsha by Parsha

The Magan Avraham (285:1) brings a machlokes between the Shlah and Lechem Chamudos whether one learns each possuk rwice and then targum or does one read an entire parsha twice (stopping by each pesucha or stumah) and then the targum. The Mishna Berura actually paskens one can do either way.

L’chorah this is based on our chakirah. If it is a halacha in talmud torah so the derech to learn is each possuk at a time. If it is preparation for leining, one would lein parsha by parsha.

(Rav Ya’akov Kamenetzky in the hakdama to Emes L’Ya’akov suggests reading an entire parsha once and then doing it possuk by possuk with the targum).

3) Being Mafsik
The Sha’ar Tzion writes that l’chatchila one should follow the opinion not to be mafsik at all. However, b’dieved one can follow the opinion to be mafsik after each parsha or inyan.

If it is a din in learning, so when we learn we are mafsik. If it is a din in kriyas hatorah so we aren’t mafsik at all and one shouldn’t be mafsik.

4) When must you finish

We find different opinions when you have to finish the shnayim mikra. One opinion is that it must be done before Shabbos day. This makes sense if it is a din in preparing fro kriyas HaTorah. The opinions that hold you have until Wednesday of the following week or even until Shimini Atzeres would hold it is a din in learning the Torah over the course of the year.

5) Using a Sefer Torah for shanyim mikrah

There is an shittah that one should try and learn shnayim mikra with the trup and inside a sefer torah. This shittah would hold it is preparation for Keriyas HaTorah

Parshas VaYichi:Snow onShabbos

2009-01-11T23:26:00.009-05:00

It snowed in my hometown this Shabbos and I would like to take credit for it. Early last week I couldn't figure out what to talk about this Shabbos. Then I noticed a few posts discussing snow and shoveling snow on Shabbos. I had briefly looked into it a few years ago and I figured I might as well talk about it this week even though there was no connection to the parsha. Then, on Shabbos it snowed and I had my connection. It must have been hashgacha that caused it to snow just so my shiur would be inyanei d'yoma. (and for all you rationalists out there, yes I know the Rambam's shitta on hashgacha). After opening shiur with the above remarks, one of the people in the shiur told me that maybe I should have spoken about Moshiach. I guess there is always next week. anyway,onto the shiur.

I already wrote about it over here , but I will repost it with some additional he'aras.

Is Snow Muktzeh?

Most poskim hold snow that fell before Shabbos is not muktzeh. If it fell on Shabbos, then there is a question of nolad.

1) The Pri Megadim says that rain is nolad. According to this snow should also be nolad.

2) The Minchas Shabbos and other achronim ask on the Pri Megadim that this is against a gemara mefureshes. The gemara in Eiruvin 46b concludes that rain is not nolad because it is contained in clouds. The clouds act as a container that holds the rain and the rain is in existance before Shabbos. The Mishna Berura paskens this way in Siman 338.

Based on this, most poskim that I saw learn that snow is also not nolad. This includes the Be'er Moshe (chelek 1 siman 20) and the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchaso (SSK) in Perek 15.

The SSK does bring an interesting question from Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l in Perek 10 (where he discusses the issue of making ice). Rav Shlomo Zalman asks that even if rain is not nolad, the snow is not formed until after it leaves the clouds. Therefore, why isn't snow nolad? He answers that if item A turns into item B and item B is worse than item A, there is no issur of nolad. Since snow is worse than rain, there is no nolad. I can't say I fully understand this sevara but ayim sham where he discusses this at length.

3) Rabbi Bodner in his muktzah book quotes Rav Moshe zt"l that snow is nolad and also muktzeh machmas gufo because it is not used by anyone. Therefore, even if snow fell before Shabbos it is muktzeh.

When it comes to shoveling snow, muktzeh should not be a factor in determing if you can shovel snow. Even if you hold snow is muktzeh, you can move muktzeh that will cause harm. If the snow will cause people to slip you would be allowed to move it.

Shittas Lev Avraham (Siman 49)

The Lev Avraham is one poseik who I saw is machmir on this issue and he brings three reasons to assur shoveling snow.

a) Tircha

There is a halacha in Shulchan Aruch (siman 333) that one is not allowed to clean out your storehouse on Shabbos because it involves tircha. The Lev Avraham says that shoveling snow would violate this issur.

My only question on this is what exactly is the geder of Tircha? It seems that according to this halacha one would not be allowed to move tables and chairs on Shabbos either. Rabbi Ribiat in his sefer addresses this issue and he wants to say that the issur of tircha only applies to actions that are not part of day to day activity. Therefore, since people will move tables and chairs when necessary, it is considered a daily activity and not subject to this issur. Cleaning out a warehouse is not done everyday and therefore it is assur.

According to this hagdara maybe one can argue that shoveling snow is not tircha. Granted we don't do it everyday but that is only because it doesn't snow everyday. If it snowed everyday, maybe it would be a daily activity and be comparable to moving tables and chairs.

Uvda D'Chol

The Lev Avraham also writes that shoveling snow is uvda d'chol.

My question on this is what makes it uvda d'chol. I would not call snow shoveling an activity that you would only do during the week. You shovel when snow falls, regardless of when it happens. However, I did see the Mishna Berura writes that playing chess with a set you use during the week is uvda d'chol, and therefore, you should have a set used exclusively for Shabbos. According to this maybe snow shoveling would also be uvda d'chol. I think one would first have to define the geder of u'vda d'chol and see if shoveling snow fits into that geder. (obviouslly, the Lev Avraham felt it did)

Mashva Gumos

The 3rd reason to assur it is that by shoveling snow you might come to level the ground (ayin siman 337). Even if the ground is paved we are still gozeir because you might do it on a dirt floor.
The problem with this reason is that the Biur Halacha points out if most of the city's streets are paved, this gezeirah doesn't apply. The Machzeh Eliyahu (siman 68) asks this question and says that this reason would not apply.

Bottom Line

I only saw a few poskim discuss this issue. The Nishmas Shabbos was meikil when there is hezek d'rabbim. However, I don't have the volume where he discusses his reasoning so I don't know what he does about the tircha or uvda d'chol issue.

The Lev Avraham as mentioned was machmir. The Machzeh Eliyahu was also machmir based on the reasons of the Lev Avraham.

Rabbi Frand has a tape on it which I was able to download from his website. I believe he concludes that b'sha'as hadchak if it is a real tzorech you can be meikil and shovel.

I didn't address the Har Tzvi, which I mentioned over here .

The other 2 issues are having a non-Jew do it for you and putting down salt. In both these cases even the machmirim are matir it. I'll try and discuss it later.

Parshas Miketz/Shabbos Chanuka:Women saying Hallel on Chanuka

2009-01-01T13:52:00.009-05:00

There is an interesting shailah discussed in the poskim whether women have a chiyuv to say hallel on Chanukah.

Shittas Tosafos

The mishna in Sukka 38a says that a woman can not be motzi a man in Hallel. Tosafos writes that from here we see that a woman is patur from saying Hallel on Yom Tov. However, he says that women would be m'chuyav in Hallel during the seder on Pesach night. The fact that they are m'chuyav in the 4 cups of wine means they have a chiyuv Hallel, since the cups of wine were set up to be said over Hallel. The sevara to be m'chayev them is "af hein b'oso haneis"

Based on this Tosafos, the Toras Refael and the Shevet Sofer in Hisorirus Teshuva want to say that hu hadin on Chanukah. The sevara of "af hein" should be m'chayeiv women in Hallel as well.

However, the Beis She'arim (siman 359) says even according to Tosafos, women would be patur. The Ramban (in Sefer HamItzvos) quoting the Behag says Hallel is a mitzva d'oreisa. Tosafos in Pesachim holds that we don't say "af hein" on mitzvos d'oreisa (and that is why women are patur from Sukka). Therefore, the sevara of "af hein" does not apply to Hallel and women are patur. Hallel onPesach night is different because it is tafeil to the four cups of wine which is only

d'abanan.

Shittas HaRambam

The Rambam in Hilchos Chanuka Perek 3 writes that Hallel is only d'rabanan. Furthermore, he writes that women can not be motzi men in Hallel and he doesn't differentiate between Yom Tov and Chanuka. The pashtus is that even on Chanukah, women are not m'chuyav in Hallel. However, why doesn't the Rambam say women are m'chuyeves because of "af hein"?

The S'dei Chemed says that ain hachi nami. Women are m'chuyeves because of "af hein" but they are only m'chuyeves in one pasuk. Men are m'chuyav in the entire Hallel. Therefore, women can't be motzi men.

I saw in a sefer a letter from Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l who writes that women ar eatur from Hallel. He says the chiyuv Hallel is m'din Yom Tov. The gemara in Arachin says Shabbos is not z'man Hallel since it is not a moed. Therefore, even on Chanuah, the chiyuv of Hallel is m'din Yom Tov and not m'din shira for a neis. Only on Pesach night do we say Hallel m'din shira al haneis. Therefore, only on Pesach night can we say women are chayuv because of "af hein".

B'emes the Brisker Rav has this m'halech where he is m'chaleik between Hallel at the seder or b'zman haneis whichis m'din shira and Hallel on Yom Tov and Chanuka which is m'din Yom Tov.

Rav Shternbuch (Moadim U'Zmanim Siman 146) takes a slightly different approach and says

women are m'chuyeves. He quotes the Brisker Rav's chiluk. He explains that on Chanuka we don't say Hallel b'toras shira because we only say it b'toras shira if there is a ma'aseh that is m'orer simcha like shechitas korban pesach or hallel over a victory. Therefore, b'zman hazeh the hallel of Chanuka was established m'din Yom Tov.However, he is m'chadeish that since the shoresh of the chiyuv Hallel on Chanuka is m'din shira al haneis, there are certain halachos that apply to this Hallel. For example, Meseches Sofrim says it should be done b'n'imah just like Hallel on Pesach night. Therefore, Rav Shternbuch says it could be women would also be m'chyeves to say it. Although he is modeh the Rambam is mashma they are not m'chuyeves.

Third Year Anniversary

2008-12-31T09:55:00.002-05:00

It's hard to believe that this week , my blog will have been up for 3 years. Althoough I have slowed down recently , looking at my old posts has inspired me to try and be more on top of it. (The key word being "try").

Also, Mazal Tov to my daughter who officially was Bas Mitzvah yesterday, 3 Teves.

Parshas Vayeishev:Using Treife Food For The Menorah

2008-12-22T15:07:00.002-05:00

I discussed an interesting question, whether one is allowed to use non kosher food as oil or candles for the Chanuka menorah.

This question can be divided into 2 groups; one group would be issurei ha'na'ah like basar b'chalav or orlah. The 2nd group would be your regular run of the mill treife food like candles made from pig fat. I'd like to focus on this second group first.

Shittas Magen Avraham

The issue starts with a Magen Avraham in Hilchos Shofar Siman 586. The Rema paskens that one can not use a shofar from a non kosher animal. The Magen Avraham explains that in Shabbos 28b the gemara learns that tefillin must be made from a kosher animal ("min hamutar sheh bificha"). Furthermore, the gemara in Kiddushin equates the mitzva of tefillin to the other mitzvos in the torah to prove that women are patur from z'man grama. Therefore, the Magen Avraham says that this hekesh between tefillin and other mitzvos can also be applied to the halacha that the item used in the mitzvah must be from a kosher animal. (ayin Machatzis HaShekel who understands the Magen Avraham this way). It would come out that according to the Magen Avraham, the neiros of Chanuka must also come from a kosher source.

Poskin who disagree

Not all poskim hold that this Magen Avraham applies to ner Chanuka.

1) The Beis Yitzchak writes that this halacha only applies to cheftzei mitzva which are still around. The Yerushalmi in Sotah has a machlokes whether megillas sotah can be written on a non kosher animal. The opinion who holds you can't says the reason is because maybe the sotah will not want to drink the water. The Beis Yitzchak asks, why don't we say the reason is because we need "min hamutar sheh bificha". He answers that this halacha only applies cheftzei mitzva which are still around and since the klaf of the sotah is erased you don't need "min hamutar sheh bificha". The Beis Yitzchak then says the same sevara applies to ner chanuka, since the oil/candle is burned it can come from a non kosher animal

2) The son of the Noda B'Yehuda discusses this issue in a teshuva in the Noda B'Yehuda Mahadura Tinyana Siman 3. He is m'chaleik between tashmishei kedusha (tefillin) and tashmishei mitzvah. Since ner Chanuka are only tashmishei mitzvah there is no problem. One of his proofs is from the chilazon used in the techeiles which according to some shittos is from a non kosher animal. We see for tashmishei mitzva you can use a non kosher animal.

3) Rav Shlomo Kluger in Shnos Chaim writes there might be a problem of miyus. But if you are mesupak if it is not kosher or you don't know about it it is not miyus and you can use the candles

more later on issurei ha'na'ah

Parshas VaYeitzei:Hosafos to Ma'ariv when Davening Early: Part 2

2008-12-10T17:27:00.003-05:00

To answer why one would say Ya'aleh V'Yavo even when davening early, the Mishnas Ya'avetz(Siman 2) has an interesting chiddush. I also found this idea in the Shut Mishnah Halachos. The halacha is that if you forget ya'aleh v'yavo at night you don'trepeat shemoneh esrei because we are not m'kadeish the chodesh at night and really one does not need to say ya'aleh v'yavo at night. However, why then do we see it? The Mishnas Ya'avetz says that we say it in reference to the next day which has kedushas Rosh Chodesh. It comes out that even when we daven ma'ariv after nightfall we are saying ya'aleh v'yavo because of the next day. Therefore, what difference does it make if we say it before tzais or after tzais-it is not a tefilla dependent on the night.

Regarding Al HaNisim, I saw in the Rivivos Ephraim that Rav Moshe held if one says Al HaNisim during mincha before Chanuka it is not a hefsek. The reason is that erev chanuka is also the z'man of commemorating the neis of winning the war. If this is so, then kal v'choomer one who davens ma'ariv early could say Al HaNisim. The Rivios Ephraim also quotes Rav Ovadiah Yosef who says this as well.

For V'sein Tal U'Matar I didn't find a clear reason why you would say it. The Ishei Yisroel just say swe do and he brings to sources but it is not clear why.

Parshas VaYeitzei:Hosafos to Ma'ariv when Davening Early

2008-12-08T15:36:00.002-05:00

It's been awhile and I apologize to my legions of fans who have been anxiosly awaiting my next post.

I spoke abount an interesting shaylah this week. We paskin that one can daven ma'ariv starting from plag hamincha,like shittas Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 26a. (whether this is l'chatchila or b'dieved is not nogeia this discussion). What happens if one davens ma'ariv early on Rosh Chodesh, does one say ya'aleh v'yavo? How about davening ma'ariv early on the 1st night of Chanukah or on December 3rd, when one would add v'sein tal u'mattar.

The halacha is we do add the various hosafos even when davening early. The question will be why.

The gemara in Berachos 27 says that one can daven ma'ariv for Shabbos early. The question is why. Most Rishonim hold that since there is a mitzvah of tosefes Shabbos, once you are m'kabeil Shabbos you can now daven a Shabbos shemoneh esrei before it is night. The Rambam however does not hold of tosefes Shabbos and he learns it is a special kulah in ma'ariv since ma'ariv is only a reshus not a chiyuv.

According to teh Rambam we can apply this chiddush of ma'ariv being a reshus to any ma'ariv and therefore that is why we add the hosafos despite davening early. The problem is the other Rishonim who learn the sugyah based on tosefes Shabbos. By these other hosafos there is no tosefes. We need to come up with other reasons why we add the hosafos before nightfall.

More to come...
A

Parshas VaYeira:Tefillas Nedava

2008-11-16T15:42:00.002-05:00

The gemara says that the Avos established tefillah. Now that we are in the parsha of the Avos, it is a good time to discuss aspects of tefillah. This week’s chabura discussed the idea of davening a tefilas nedava. The sugyah is found in Berachos 21a. One can have the following chakirah in tefillas nedava. How does one view a tefillas nedava. Is it really the same cheftzah of tefilla as a tefilla of chova and the only difference between a nedava and chova is in your kavanah. L’mashel, one can bring a korbon as a chova or nedava. Both korbonos consist of the same animal and the only difference is your kavana in bringing it. The other tzad is to say that a tefillas chova and nedava are different cheftza’s of tefillas and they are fundamentally different. We can explain a few machlokes rishonim with this chakira.

Chiddush in Tefillas Nedava

There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos whether tefillas nedava requires a chiddush. This machlokes is also found between the Rambam and Ra’avad in Hilchos Tefillah (perek 1). L;chorah one can explain the machlokes based on our chakira. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one would not need a chiddush to distinguish between the two. However, if you hold they are fundamentally different then you need to add something to your nedava to make it different then a chova, This is why you need a chiddush. In fact the loshon of the Rambam is that you need a chiddush to show it is a tefillas nedava.

Combining Nedava and Chova

There is a machlokes Rishonim what happens if one is in the middle of davening and remembers that he already davened. Can one finish the rest of davening b’toras chova. R’Chaim understands that it is a machlokes between the Rambam and Ra’avad. The Rambam paskens you must stop and you can not continue b’toras nedava. The reason is that you can’t combine a tefillas chova and nedava. The Ra’avad (according to R’ Chaim’s understanding) holds you can finish b’toras nedava. R’ Chaim adds that this machlokes is l’shitasam to the machlokes above about whether one needs a chiddush. R’ Chaim doesn’t explain himself but l’chorah according to our chakira it works out. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one could combine them –like the Ra’avad holds. But if you hold they are fundamentally different then you would not be able to combine them, like the Ramabm holds.

Halacha L’Ma’aseh

What happens if you are in the middle of shemoneh esrei and you forget what beracha you are in. The Chayei Adam says you can not repeat the beracha you are mesupak about b’toras nedava because you can’t combine a nedava with chova and the rest of shemoneh esrei would be a tefillas chova. Rather, you skip to the beracha that you know for sure you didn’t say. Both the Steipler (Kehillas Ya’akov in Berachos) and Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yabeia Omer Chelek 9 Siman 8) ask how can you skip a beracha. If it turns out that you never said the beracha you are mesupak in then it turnsw out you missed a beracha and you were never yotzei shemone esrei. Furthermore, all the rest of the berachos would be a bracha l’vatalah. Therefore they pasken you should repeat the beracha you are mesupak about.

Both the sefer Ishei Yisroel and Tefillah K’Hilchasa bring the Chayei Adam l’halacha and mention the Kehillas Ya’akov and Yabeia Omeir in the footnotes. When I asked a posek what to do I was told to follow the Kehillas Yaakov and repeat the beracha you are mesupak in, against the Chayei Adam.

Lech Lecha:Milah Knife and Muktzah

2008-11-08T23:24:00.000-05:00

This week’s chaburah discussed an interesting issue regarding muktzeh machmas chisaron kis. The Shulchan Aruch in Siman 308:1 says those items that one would not use because the owner does not want them to get ruined are muktzeh machmas chisaron kis. The example the Shulchan Aruch gives is a mila knife. The question is, if the milah knife would break and the owner would no longer be worried about ruining it, would it lose its status of muktzah. There are 3 opinions in this halacha.

Magan Avraham

The Magan Avraham (308:19) writes that if a utensil that is muktzeh breaks on Shabbos even though the reason for the muktzeh no longer applies, the item is still muktzeh. The Levushei Serad explains that the Magan Avraham is referring to muktzeh machmas chisaron kis and the reason it is still muktzeh is because of the rule that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos (migu d’itzkatzoi bein hash’mashos itzkatzoi l’kulo yoma).

Rabbi Akiva Eiger

Rabbi Akiva Eiger disagrees and says if a milah knife broke it is no longer muktzeh. We pasken like Rabbi Shimon who does not hold that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos. Furthermore, in the beginning of Siman 308, he writes that it might be possible to remove the muktzeh by changing your mind. If you decide to no longer use this knife as a mila knife it now loses its muktzah status. However, on this last part Rabbi Akiva Eiger is mesupak since maybe you need a ma’aseh to remove the chisaron kis from the object.

Chazon Ish

The Chazon Ish takes a middle of the road approach. He says that even Rabi Shimon holds if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos unless there is a chance the muktzah would be removed on Shabbos. If such a chance exists then you are considered as waiting for the muktzah to fall off (yosheiv u’mitzapeh) and the object is muttar when the muktzeh is removed. By the milah knife, you are not yosheiv u’mitzapeh and therefore even when it breaks it is still muktzah. However, a milah knife that is damaged and might break would not be muktzeh if it broke on Shabbos . In this case we say you are yosheiv u’mitzapeh that it will break and the rule of migu d’itzkatzoi doesn not apply.

The real question is what is the sevara of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Why does he say the knife is muttar without any qualifications.

Stay tuned...

Rosh Hashana: The Tekios

2008-09-29T12:25:00.002-04:00

In case you were wondering I'm still around. I've just been swamped at work and it looks like it will continue this way through Sukkos.

I spoke this week about the different shittos in how we blow tekios. I'll just mention one thing I said. Rashi holds a teruah is three short blasts and Tosafos/Rosh hold it is nine. (We follow Tosafos). Since a tekiah is the same length as a teruah, according to Rashi, 1 blast of the tekiah can't be longer than the equivilant of three short blasts. Also, l'fi Rashi, we blow three shevarim and a shever is the length of 2 short blasts. If it would be the length of 3 short blasts it would be a tekiah.

Our shevarim are 3 blasts and each blast is l'chatchila the length of 3 short blasts. It comes out that according to Rashi we are really blowing three tekios and not 3 shevarim (and we are not yotzei). That is why some have the chumrah to be yotzei shittas Rashi by blowing after davening a set of shevarim where each shever is the length of 2 short blasts.

In the Nefesh HaRav it brings down that Rav Soloveitchik had the following eitzah which Rav Chaim agreed to. It never says you have to blow 3 shevarim. All the Rishonim say is that the total length of all the shevarim must equal the length of 9 short blasts. Why can't you blow 5 blasts with each blast being the length of 2 short blasts. This way even according to Rashi you have blown shevarim, nottekios and you have also blown the length of 9 short blasts.

Hope this wasn't too confusing.

Have a Kesiva V'Chasima Tova and a Healthy Sweet New Year!

Public Service Announcement

2008-09-08T15:54:00.001-04:00

I just discovered that anypne who is a YU alumnus can get free access to the Bar Ilan and Otzar HaChochma database (along with other electronic periodicals). If you follow the link below you can register for this free service.

(I knew my YU education would come in handy one day)

http://www.yu.edu/libraryalumniportal/index.aspx?ID=4086

Shoftim:Cutting Down Fruit Trees

2008-09-08T15:24:00.004-04:00

As previously mentioned, my shiur this week was on the topic of cutting down fruit trees. The Torah says that one can not cut down any fruit trees. However, the gemara in Bava Kama 91B and Bava Basra 26a qualify this that if the wood is worth more than the fruit one can cut it down. The Rosh adds that if one needs the mokom of the tree then one can also cut the tree down. Finally, the Rambam in Hil Melachim writes that the only issur is if it is cut down in a destructive manner. Therefore, the issur would not apply in the following scenarios a) if the wood is worth more than the fruit b) if one needs the mokom of the tree c) the tree is damaging the adjacent property d) the tree is old and not producing enough fruit (how much fruit is discussed by the Rambam).

The Taz brings this halacha down in Siman 117:6 and he mentions the heterim listed above. He also wonders why the Tur did not bring this halacha down at all.

Various poskim discuss this issue and they all seem to be in agreement that when one of the above situations apply it is muttar to cut down a tree. However, they do raise several interesting points.

Sakana

The gemara in Bava Basra mentions that Rav Chinina's son died because he cut down a fruit tree. From here we see that besides there being an issur to cut a tree down there is also an aspect of sakana. The question some poskin deal with is whether this sakana issue is separate from the issur or tied to the issur.

Sh'ailas Ya'avetz

The Sh'ailas Ya'avetz was asked about cutting down a tree to expand a shul. He says that it is a davar pashut that it is muttar since it is tzorech mitzvah and you need the mokom. However, he says even if it is muttar, it would still be a question of sakana. The rayah to this is from the gemara in Bava Basra. You can't say that Rav Chinina did an aveirah by cutting down the tree. It must have been a case where it was muttar. Yet we still see his son died. Therefore, even when it is muttar there is still a sakana.

L'ma'aseh, the Ya'avetz paskens that in this case the shul was being rented from a non-Jew and therefore you don't have to worry about the sakana since the tree was owned by the non-Jew. He also reccomends uprooting the entire tree and replanting it. Then there would be no problem of sakana either.

The Chasam Sofer disagrees. He paskens that if there is no issur then there is no sakana. As long as it is muttar one does not have to worry about a sakana. Howeevr, he does say that if you have any doubt whether it is muttar, you should not cut it down (for example you are not sure if the tree is dead) since it is a safeik sakana. He also says that uprooting and replanting the tree somewhere else only works if you have a reason to move the tree. Just to uproot it for no reason is still assur.

The Har Tzvi (O.C. Chelek 2 Siman 103/104) seems to follow the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz. He was asked about cutting down a tree to build a sukka. He says even though it is tzorech mitzvah and muttar, you still have to worry about the sakana. His eitzah is to have a non Jew do it so anu safeik sakana will be on his head. Rav Asher Weiss quotes a number of poskim who argue on the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz and say that if it is muttar there is no sakana. (also see the comments to my previous post)

Branches of a tree

There is a question if this issur applies to cutting branches off a tree. The Har Tzvi writes that it is a machlokes between the Mishneh L'Melech who is mattir and the Be'er Sheva who hold sit is assur. The Har Tzvi seems to lean towards it being muttar since even after cutting the branches, the nourishment extends to the rest of the tree. He still says have a non Jew do it.

One thought I had was that there is a whole industry of olive wood products (shtenders etc). I wonder where their wood comes from.

Welcome Back

2008-09-05T13:03:00.003-04:00

I'd like to welcome myself back to my blog. At least I haven't gone 30 days without blogging otherwise I might have had to make a Shehechiyanu.

My parsha chabura picks up again this week and I will be discussing the issur of cutting down fruit trees. You will have to tune in next week (or come to my shiur) to find out what I said . However, I will mention one teshuva I found that I was very excited to find since it dealt with a shaylah I actually had 7 years ago. The Har Tzvi discusses whether one can cut down a fruit tree to make room for a sukkah. Seven years ago when we first got our sukka I decided that the ideal spot was in a certain spot in our backyard. However, we had an apricot tree growing and one of the branches was hanging over into the spot where I wanted to put the sukkah. At the time I wasn't aware of this Har Tzvi and in the end I managed to put the sukkah there despite the branch rubbing against the wall.

Making a Siyum during the 9 Days

2008-08-07T11:35:00.004-04:00

This week I attended a family yartziet siyum seudah and the discussion arose whether someone who missed the actual siyum could eat the meat at the seudah. Someone pointed out a Chayei Adam quoted by the Mishna Berura that says you can not send food from the seudah to someones house. This person wanted to prove from here that you need to hear the siyum. L'aniyas da'ati I am not convinced it is a good rayah, since it is not clear to me what exactly is the point of the Chayei Adam. He could be saying that you have to be present at the siyum but he could also be saying that the food doesn't fall into the catagory of eating at a seudas mitzvah unless you are present at the actual meal. Especially during the nine days when there is a hakpadah to only invite friends and relatives, it could be the Chayei Adam feels to send the food to a person is not good enough. To me it is a tzarach iyun on how to understand the implications of this Chayei Adam.

I did look in the Pischei Teshuvos and he directs you to the siman on Ta'anis Bechorim. Although maybe one can be m'chaleik between the siyum of 9 days and the siyum of ta'anis bechorim, the Piskei Teshuvos obviously feels you can equate the two. The pashtus would be to equate the two cases since the heterim of both revolve around the idea that you are eating at a seudas mitzvah. If by ta'anis bechorim eating at the seudah even though you missed the siyum is allowed because al kol panim it is still a seudas mitzvah so too it should be the same thing by the 9 days.

In any event, by Ta'anis Bechorim he brings a machlokes haposkim whether one has to be at the siyum or is just being at the seudas mitzvah enough.

The Minchas Yitzchak in cheleik 9 siman 45 says by Ta'anis Bechorim if you missed the siyum you can still eat at the seudah. His rayah is from a Biur Halacha in 551:10 which deals with the halachos of the 9 days. Clearly, from the fact the Minchas Yitzchak brings a rayah from the 9 days to ta'anis bechorim he holds that in both cases one does not have to be at the siyum.

I did not get a chance to look at the other mareh m'komos brought in the Piskei Teshuvos and nor is it clear to me if the other matirim by Ta'anis Bechorim would also be matir by the 9 days.

Eating before the siyum

The other question that arose is whether one can eat the meat before the siyum takes place or must one wait for the siyum. L'mashel if one washes and eats bread before the siyum must you wait for the siyum before eating the meat or can you eat the meat right away. I think one can say it depends on what gives the seudah a shem "seudas mitzvah". Is it the potential siyum that will take place or is it like kiddush on Shabbos where the kiddush is koveia the seudah as a seudas Shabbos (acc to one approach in kiddush). I once asked a poseik by any siyum can one wash before the siyum and still be considered as eating a seudas mitzvah or must one wait for the siyum in order to call the meal a seudas mitzvah. He told me (if I remembr correctly) that one can wash before the siyum and it is stil a seudas mitzvah. If that is case maybe we can apply the same sevarah here too and say that you can eat the meat before the actual siyum took place. (although what would happen if the siyum wound up never happening-do we say l'mafreia you ate meat b'issur during the 9 days).

Parshas Pinchas:Yerushas HaBas

2008-07-21T10:23:00.002-04:00

Bloggong has been slow this summer due to vacations and the heta but I didn't want a whole month to go by without writing something

I discussed an interetsing shailah that is found in many poskim. According to the torah a daughter has no rights to the yerusha. The question is, what happens if her brothers come to her and ask her to sign a waiver relinquishing her claims to the yerusha. Al pi torah she has no rights so by signing she does not lose anything. The brothers might want her to sign for a couple of reasons. Either they want to make sure she won't cause trouble in the future or perhaps the secular law won't allow them to take possession of the property until those who are not getting anything will give up their claim. The shailah discussed is does the daughter have a right to ask for money in order to sign the waiver or is she obligated to do it for free.

Among the poskim that discuss this are the Shoeil U'meishiv, the Divrei Chaim, Maharsham, and the Minchas Yitzchak. The first to discuss this shailah was the Pnei Moshe who says it is a machlokes between the Maharit and Mahri Besson.

The poskim bring rayas from various gemaras for their opinion. For example, the Shoeil U'Meishiv (mahadura basra chelek 1 siman 1) brings a rayah from a Ran in Gittin (Perek 4) that she doesn't have to sign for free. The gemara says that if an eved runs away to EY the master can't take him back. However, the Ran says we don't force the master to write a shtar shichrur. The Shoeil U'Meishiv says from here we see you can't force the daughter to sign.

The tzad to say that she must sign is based on 2 reasons. The first reason is that it is midas s'dom not to sign. It is zeh nehneh v'zeh lochaseir. The only question is do we force someone to do a midas s'dom. The Divrei Chaim and Nachlas Tzvi (Shulchan Aruch Siman 276) write that if the daughter will not lose anything by signing we force her to sign. They bring a rayah from a sugyah in Baba Kama 102b. (ayin sham). The Mahatsham writes that if we know she could stand to lose we don't force her to sign. For example, it night be beneficial for her to make people think she has property coming to her. Teh second reason to make her sign is m'din hashavas aveida. If in secular law the brothers can't collect the property until she signs off then by signing off she is m'kayeim hashavas aveida. Again the Maharsham points out that you are not obligated to lose money for hashavas aveida so if she will lose out by signing she doesn't have to sign.

L'ma'aseh the Minchas Yitzchak writes there are 3 possible situations

1) if secular law requires one to make a claim otherwise they lose out, so we force her to keep quiet and m'meilah she loses the rights (al pi secular law). If she already put in a claim we make her take her claim back.

2) If secular law requires that she sign a waiver and by doing so she will realize some sort of loss, we verify if this is true and if it is she is not required to sign a waiver.

3) If she will not realize a loss by signing the waiver then it is a machlokes haposkim if she can demand money for her signature. The Maharsham writes she can ta'ana ""kim li"-I hold like the poskim that say I can ask for money and she can ask for money. (The Minchas Yitzchak himself feels she can't ask for money based on a Chasam Sofer).

Parshas Shelach: Mitzvos Beteilos L'Asid Lavo Part II

2008-06-23T09:59:00.003-04:00

How to understand the machlokes whether mitzvos will be batul in the future is itself a machlokes Rishonim.

Ritva

The Ritva in Nidda (61b) says that it refers to the time of techiyas hameisim. The Ritva adds that even the opinion that says that there is no difference between the days of Moshiach and our tines, can still hold the mitzvos will be batul. There are two different time periods. One is the days of Moshiach where nothing will change and then there is the tekufah of techiyas hameisim where mitzvos will be batul.

It seems from the Ritva that the reason for the petur in mitzvos is that during this tekufah it will be a zman of neither zechus or chovah, and tehrefore there will be no point in commanding someone to do mitzvos.

There are however 2 ways to understand what is the reason why mitzvos are batul. The gemara writes that Yechezkel HaNavi was m'chayei meisim and these meisim wore tefillin. From here we see that even after someone dies he is still chayav in mitzvos. The Ritva gives 2 answers. The first answer is that the petur from mitzvos will only take place by the global techiyas hameisim. It is only at this time that there will be no need to be commanded in mitzvos. The 2nd answer is that really misa itself causes the petur, once a person dies he is "chofshi min hamitzvos". However, even though mitzvos will be batul, it doesn't mean that one can not do mitzvos. You can still do the mitzvos since there is an inherent kedusha in them. Just like the Avos were m'kayeim the mitzvos so too people brought back to life can do mitzvos.

These 2 mehalchim seem to also be found in the Koveitz Shiurim Chelek 2 Siman 29. Rav Elchanan asks how can mitzvos be batul if the torah can't be changed. He answers either it is built into the Torah that at a certain time (techiyas hameisim) mitzvos will no longer apply or the pshat is that misa causes the petur, but someone who doesn't die will still be chayav. He writes that the nafka mina is someone who comes alive before the final techiyas hameisim. The Radvaz says that tzaddikim will have their own techitas hameisim by zman Moshiach. According to the first mehalech, they would still be chayav in mitzvos and according to the second mehalech they would be patur. L'chorah, these are the 2 answers in the Ritva also.

Shittas HaRashba

The Rashba disagrees with this whole idea. In his Chiddushei Aggados (Berachos 18a) he says "mitzvos beteilos l'asid lavo" refers to the time of death. In other words, this opinion holds that when someone dies he is patur from mitzvos. However, once he is alive again he is chayav. The opinion that holds "mitzvos ain beteilos l'asid lavo" doesn't necessarily hold a meis is chayav in mitzvos but rather he holds that we can not cause a meis to do an aveirah. Just like we can't cause a katan to do an aveirah so too meisim. That is why you can't bury a meis in kelayim.

Understandably, this is a hard sevarah to understand, and the Ritva rejects it as making no sense.

The Rashba does add that after the z'man of techiyas hameisim there will be another tekufah called "olam haneshamos". During this tekufah there will ne no mitzvos and this is pshat in the gemara "hayom l'a'sosam u'l'machar l'kabeil schar"-at some future point we will not be doing mitzvos only getting reward. This is the tekufa of "olam haneshamos". (The Ritva says it refers to the zman of techiyas hameisim).

Parshas Shelach: Mitzvos Beteilos L'Asid Lavo

2008-06-19T09:55:00.002-04:00

Although I ususually write up my chaburah after I give it , this week I decieded to start writing it up beforehand. I have not formulated the whole structure yet, but here is the basic idea.

(The connection to the parsha is the fact that the mitzvah of tzitzis is in Parshas Shelach)

The Rosh in Moed Katan (Perek 3 Siman 80) discusses whether one should put tzitzis on the tachrichin of a meis. (ayin Menochos 41A). The Rosh says that the opinion that we do put tachrichin on a meis holds like Shmuel that mitzvos won't be batul l'asid lavo. The reason for this is that if you hold mitzvos won't be batul l'asid lavo, so by techiyas hameisim, the meis will come back to life without wearing tzitzis and it will be a problem of "loeig l'rosh". The Rosh paskens that we don't put tzitzis on a meis because we hold that mitzvos will be batul l'asid lavo.

The question is what does it mean that the mitzvos will be batul in the future. This is a sugyah in Niddah 61B and there is a machlokes Rishonim how to understand this sugyah.

More to come...

Parshas Beha'aloscha: Backwards "Nunin"

2008-06-16T13:20:00.003-04:00

Well it only took me 3 weeks to put up another post.

This weeks chaburah was concerning the backwards "nun"s in this weeks parsha. The gemara in Shabbos 115b has a machlokes why we have simanim by the parsha of "vayehi binso'a aron". Either it tells us that this parsha doesn't belong here or it tells us that it is a sefer b'fnei atzmo. However, the gemara doesn't tell us what these simanim are.

The Maharshal (Siman 73) writes that the simanim can not be referring to placing upside down or backwards nunin by this parsha. Writing a nun backwards before and after this parsha would make a sefer torah pasul. You can't just add letters into the sefer torah. Rather the Maharshal writes the m'kor seems to come from a zohar that writing the nun upside down/backwards teaches us that even when the aron is travelling the shechina stays with b'nei yisroel. Furthermore, the nunin the zohar is referring to are the nunin of the words "b'n'so'a" and "u'v'nucha". There are those who flip around the nunin of "mis'oninim" as well.

The Noda B'Yehuda argues and says adding extra letters does not pasul a sefer torah. The only extra letters that pasul a sefer torah ar eletters you add to a word. Adding symbols on the side of the torah is okay. Furthermore, the rishonim discuss these nunin. The halacha is one can not write 2 symbols on Shabbos. Rav Hai Gaon gives as an example the two nunin in our parsha. Therefore, writing 2 separate nunin is okay.

Parshas Behar: Gezel Sheina

2008-05-19T10:10:00.004-04:00

Well, it's been over a month and I am sure noone really missed me. But even if you didn't miss me, I'm back for now. Here is this week's chaburah.

In this weeks parsha we learn out the issur of on'as devarim. The Rishonim discuss exactly what is included in this issur. For example, the Seforno includes the issur of geneivas da'as in this issur. The Chinuch explains that the issur is to cause someone tzar. In the sefer Pischei Choshen (on dinei Choshen Mishpat by Rav Ya'akov Blau) he writes that included in the issur of ona'as devarim is the issur of gezel sheina-waking someone up when they are sleeping. The sevara behind this is that ona'as devarim is the issur of causing someone tza'ar and when you wake someone up you cause him tza'ar therefore waking someone up is ona'as devarim.

The question is, why is it called "gezel sheina"-is there an actual issur of stealing and also how do the poskim view this issur.

1) The Shevet Levi (Rav Wosner) writes that it can't be a real issur of gezeilah. You are only chayav for gezeila if you cause someone a loss and here you are not causing anyone a loss. He does say that by waking someone up, you take away an intangible benefit from someone (this is my interpertation of his words, his actual loshon is "m'vateil to'eles v'tovas chaveiro). He says we see that this is an issur from the gemara in Bava Basra 20b and Choshen Mishpat Siman 156. I am not sure what he is referring to since I don't see any mention of there being an issur.

2) Rav Menashe Klein in Mishneh Halachos writes in a few places why it is called gezel sheina. In Chelek 12 Siman 443 he writes that the m'kor for gezel sheina comes from a gemara in Berochs 13a that says that Rav Nachman told his servant to be m'tza'eir him and wake him up in order to read the firsty posuk of Shema. We see from here that to wake someone up is called causing someone pain. Rav Menashe Klein then brings a gemara in Sanhedrin 59 that the ikkar inyan of gezel is because you are causing someone pain. Also, there is a tosefta in Babab Kama (3:7) that lists geneivas da'as as a type of geneiva even though you are not causing someone a loss. So you see you don't need to cause a loss to be called gezeila.
The truth is I am not sure if Rav Menashe Klein is trying to say that gezel sheina is real gezel or if he is just trying to explain why the term "gezel sheina" is used. The reason for my safeik is because in Chelek 14 Siman 199 he actually has a teshuva to Rav Wosner in which he writes that the ikkar issur of gezel sheina is m'dinei hezek and not gezel.

3) I found an article by Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg in which he writes that gezel sheina is a hezek m'din tza'ar. Furtehrmore, he writes that a person can take someone to beis din for nezek, tza'ar, reepoi , sheves and boshes. Since waking someone up is a hezek of tza'ar, you could really take someone to beis din over it. However, b'zman hazeh we don't go to court over tza'a'r so you couldn't do it today. Also, it is only if you wake someone directly, making a loud noise and waking someone up is just a grama and you are patur.

4) I was told that Rav Chaim Kanievsky says it is assur m'din v'ahavata l'reiacha komocha.

Whether it is ever muttar to wake someone up, like for a minyan, will be discussed later.

Matzah Ashira Part II

2008-04-16T10:07:00.002-04:00

As mentioned we are not allowed to eat matzah on Erev Pesach. However, this only applies to matzah that one can eat by the seder. What is the status of matzah ashira-matzah made from fruit juice.

The gemara in Pesachim 35a:b has a machlokes whether "mei peiros", fruit juices make something chametz. L'halacha it is a machlokes rishonim. Rashi holds that matzah ashira (matzah made with mei peiros) is chametz nuksha while Tosafos (35b) holds it is matzah. Everyone agrees that one can not use matzah ashira for the seder. Rashi obviously holds you can't use it because it is chametz and can't be eaten at all on Pesach. Tosafos holds (based on the gemara) that it is not "lechem oni" and therefore is pasul for the seder. In fact Tosafos writes that Rabbeinu Tam would eat matzah ashira on Erev Pesach since the only matzah one can not eat Erev Pesach is matzah that you can eat by the seder.

Shittas Rema

Halacha l'Ma'aseh the Mechabeir paskens that one can eat matzah ashira on Pesach while the Rema says it is not our minhag unless you are sick or old. The Rema doesn't indicate if he is being choshesh for Rashi or if it is for a different reason. However, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that the reason for the Rema is that we are afraid some water might have gotten mixed in and matzah ashira with water becomes chamtez very quickly.

Being that the Rema says that we don't eat matzah ashira on Pesach, he also says that one should not eat it after chatzos on Erev Pesach. In other words we should treat it as chametz and it is only muttar to eat as long as one can eat chametz.

Noda B'Yehuda

The Noda B'Yehuda has an interesting teshuva where he focuses on Rashi. He says that according to Rashi matzah ashira is chametz nukshah. The Noda B'Yehuda proves that chametz nukshah is only m'd'rabanan and being that is the case it is only assur to eat when Pesach starts. It is muttar to eat the whole day of Erev Pesach. According to the Noda B'Yehuda, both Rashi and Tosafos will allow you to eat matzah ahsira the whoel Erev Pesach and one can even use it for seudah shlishis in the afternoon. L'maskana the Noda B'Yehuda paskens that he doesn't want to go against the Rema but b'shas hadchak one can eat it all day Erev Pesach

Reasons to be machmir

There are a few reasons to be machmir, specifically with regard to egg matzah.

1) The Rambam does not count eggs as mei peiros and therefore egg matzah would not be matzah ashira

2) The Bach and Maharal hold one could use matzah ashira for the seder

3) If the matzah ashira has water in it it might be considered real chametz

4) The beracha is mezonos and it is not lechem for a seudah

Rav Moshe

Rav Moshe (chelek 1 siman 155) holds one can use matzah ashira, even egg matzah made with water. He says most Rishonim and Poskim hold eggs are mei peiros. Also, based on a Magan Avraham he understands that matzah ashira with water is still matzah ashira. Finally, although the beracha is mezonos if you are koveia seudah it is hamotzi and you can use it for a seudah.

One final note: I noticed in the sefer Erev Pesach Sh'Chal B'Shabbos that he quotes from the journals in HaPardes and HaMaor various discussions that took place in 1950's on this topic. In fact Rav Moshe's teshuva appears in HaPardes Shevat 5718/Feb 1958. The other issue of HaPardes is Nissan 5714/April 1954 where Rav Moshe Rozen says you can't use egg matzah. Both journals are available at hebrewbooksw.org

Parshas Metzora:Matzah Ashira on Erev Pesach

2008-04-14T09:48:00.004-04:00

I know I have not written anything in a while and I am sure all my fans have been suffering from withdrawel. I don't know how much I will be posting over the next few weeks because of Pesach but here is my chaburah from this past week.

I spoke about eating matzah on Erev Pesach and whether one can use egg matzah. As a side note there are a number of interesting options of what type of matzah one can eat on Erev Pesach, that are discussed in the achronim. I had actualy originally intended to talk about matzah mevusheles, cooked matzah and matzah baked shelo lishma but I wasn't able to look into it. I guess I'll save it for the next time this happens which according to our calandar is in 13 years. However, I am sure Moshiach will be here before then so it might occur even earlier. (Interestingly, Erev Pesach is either a Monday or a Friday in the next 12 out of 14 years.) Also, Rav Asher Weiss in his haggadah has a nice summary of the various options of what matzah one could possibly eat on Erev Pesach.

Zman of the Issur

The Ba'al Hameor holds it is only asssur to eat matzah from the 6th hour onward which is the time when one can no longer eat chametz. The Ramban disagrees and says it is assur the whole day. According to both shittos one could eat matzah at night i.e. Friday night. However the Magan Avraham says that we don't eat matzah even the night of the 14th.

Rav Moshe zt"l (Igros Moshe chelek 1 siman 155) explains that the machlokes between the Ba'al HaMeor and Ramban is based on how you understand the reason for the issur. The Yerushalmi (Pesachim perek 10) says if you eat matzah on Erev Pesach it is as if you had relations with the woman you were engaged to in your father in laws house, meaning you lived with her before you did nisuin and were fully married. Rav Moshe says there are 2 reasons why this is assur, either because she is a p'nuyah, unmarried lady, and there is an issur to live with a p'nuyah. Or it is because before marriage it is a reshus and after marriage it is a mitzvah (of onah) and since you din't wait untilit was a mitzvah there is an issur.

According to the reason of p'nuyah, there really is no comparison to matzah. Rather they are only alike in metziyus, by arusa there are dinei ishus yet she is still assur so too by Erev Pesach there exists dinei Pesach yet matzah is still assur. The dinei Pesach that exist is the fact youmust get rid of your chametz. However, these dinim do not start until the 6th hour and therefore, there would be no reason to assur matzah until the 6th hour. However, according to the 2nd reason it is a perfect comparison-you are eating matzah in a z'man shel reshus and not waiting until the z'man chiyuv. This is why the Ramban holds it is assur the whole day. In fact Rav Moshe says this is the basis fort not eating chametz from Rosh Chodesh. An arguement can be made not to eat it 30 days before Pesach since that is when preperations for Yom Yov start but chazal weren't matriach everyone so early.

Matzah Ashira

to be continued ...

Purim Thought from Rav Yonason Eibshitz

2008-03-19T09:49:00.002-04:00

I was going through the peirush of Rav Yonason Eibshitz on the Megillah and noticed a few interesting ideas.

1) When Haman made his lottery it says "m'yom l'yom u'm'chodesh l'chodesh". Rav Yonason Eibshitz explains that Haman made two sets of lotteries. He first wrote the 12 months on 12 pieces of paer and picked as month. Then he wrote the numbers 1-354 on 354 pieces of paper. This represented each day of the year. He then picked a day. If the day of the year fell out in the month he picked then he would know the lottery was correct. In this case the day he picked fell out in the 12th month so he knew the lottery was going to work.

2) From the time that Haman sent out his letters until he was hanged was 4 days. Yet Mordechai didn't send outhis letters until Sivan, 70 days later. Why did Mordechai wait so long to do this?

Rav Yonason Eibshitz gives a few answers.

1) He shows that Haman waited 70 days from the day he came to power until he came to Achashveirosh with his plan (I forget his cheshbon, but it was an interesting cheshbon). It must be that the reason Haman had to wait was because when a person first comes to power, he is not really accepted until 70 days into his rule. So too with Mordechai. He took over for Haman and he also had to wait 70 days until people accepted him. Once he was accepted he could send out his letter.

2) The 2nd answer he brings is that Mordechai wanted there to be an Adar Sheini. Adar Sheini has no mazal so teh koach of Haman would be diminished. (I saw the B'nei Yissascher says the same idea). However, in order for there to be an Adar Sheini he had to have the Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisroel do it. It took 70 days for his request to reach Eretz Yisroel and to get a reply back. Only after he knew for sure that there was an Adar Sheini did he send out his letters.

One ha'arah on this is that my chavrusah told me that there is a Levush that says Adar Rishon has no mazal. This is based on the metzius that if there was no extra month then all the constellations that makes up the mazalos would be off and the mazal of dag would be in Nisan. By adding an extra month we ensure that Adar Sheini gets the mazal of dag while Adar Rishon would fall out partially in Shevat's mazal (d'li).

The kasha on Rav Yonason Eibshitz and the B'ne i Yissascher would be that how could you say Adara Sheini has no mazal-the metzius is that the constellation of dag falls out in Adar Sheini.

A simple teretz is that when the seforim discuss mazalos they don't necessarily have to tie it into the constellations. However, I am not sure if this is a correct understanding of mazalos.

Another possible teretz could be based on a Chasam Sofer. The Chasam Sofer writes that Tu B'Shvat is thetime when the sap begins to flowe in the trees. In a leap year al pi teva this should happen in February which is Adar Rishon and not Shevat. However, teva follows the Torah, and in a leap year the sap will flow in January/Shevat. We could say the same for the constellations. Al pi teva the constellation of dag should be in Adar Sheini but since al pi torah there is no mazal it is in Adar Rishon.

Parshas Vayikra/Zachor:Milchemes Amaleik

2008-03-17T12:37:00.002-04:00

This weeks' shiur was on the nature of Milchemes Amaleik

There is a machlokes rishonim what exactly is the geder of this mitzvah.

1) The Yeraim (435) holds it is a mitzvah on the king. His rayah is from the fact that there are 3 mitzvos that apply when B'nei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel. 1) set up a king 2) wipe out Amaleik 3) buiild the Beis HaMikdash. From the fact that you need a king to defeat Amaleik we see it is a mitzvah on teh king

2) The Chinuch writes it is a mitzvah on the tzibbur as well as on each individual.

Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin in his sefer Gevuras Yitzchak writes that the mekor for the Chinuch is the fact that there are 2 parshiyos. Beshalach discusses the idea of waging war on Amaleik. This is a miyzvah for the tzibbur. Parshas Ki Tzeitzei just says to destroy Amaleik. This is a mitzvah on the individual.

3) The Rambam seems to pasken that it is a chiyuv on the tzibbur. At the end of Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam writes that the three mitzvos of 1) setting up a king 2) wiping out Amaleik 3) building the Beis HaMikdash are mitzvos on the tzibbur.

There is also a diyuk in the Rambam Hil Melachim Perek 5. The Rambam says by the 7 nations who inhabi ed Ertez Cana'an if an individual has the opportunity to kill one of the members of these 7 nations and you don't you are m'vateil an aseh. However, by Amaleik the Rambam doesn't say anything. This implies that Amaleik is only a mitzvah on the tzibbur.

However, there are some who learn the Rambam that it is also a mitzvah on the individual.

One nafka mina can be found in Kovetz Chiddushei Torah from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l in the piece on Milchemes Mitzvah. The Rambam says that even by a milchemes mitzvah (a war against Amaleik or the 7 nations) we tell people they don't have to fight. The question is that by a milchemes mitzvah everyone is obligated to fight. So why do we read the pesukim letting people know that they don't have to go. The answer is that there are 2 dinim to a milchemes mitzvah. There is a chiyuv m'din milchama but there is also an individual chiyuv that the king can force people to go. The reason we read these pesukim is because m'dinei milchama certain people don't have to go. They only have to go because of the individual chiyuv that comes from the king forcing them.

Early Purim thoughts

2008-03-12T10:37:00.003-04:00

I thought I would just mention a couple of thoughts that came to me this week regarding Purim.

1) Most people are familiar with the shitta of Rabbeinu Tam (brought in the first Rosh on Megilla) that Ta'anis Esther commemorates the fasting the B'nei Yisroel did on 13 Adar before they fought their enemies.

It just occurred to me (and I don't know why I never made this connection before) that this means they were fasting while they were fighting. Imagine fighting on an empty stomach.

2) My daughter asked me this week why it is called Megillas Esther as opposed to Megillas Mordechai or some other name. I number of answers come to mind but what I found more interesting is that at the end of the megilla the possuk says that Mordechai wrote evrything down. Rashi says that this refers to our megilla-meaning that Mordechai wrote the megilla. However, the gemara writes that it was Esther who had an arguement with the Chachamim regarding what status the megilla should have. I found it interesting that it was Esther who made the arguements even though Mordechai wrote the megilla.

Parshas Pekudei/Shekalim:Katan Donating Shekalim

2008-03-11T11:37:00.002-04:00

The Mishna in Shekalim (1:3) says that a katan is patur from donating a 1/2 shekel to teh beis HaMikdash. The Bartenura says it is referring to someone under 20 years old. This is the Chinuch's opinion as well. Tosafos Yom Tov argues and says it refers to someone under 13. Anyone over 13 must contribute. The Rambam (Hilchos Shekalim) and the Ramban also hold anyone over 13 must contribute. The mishna also says that if a katan donates we accept it from him. The achronim ask how can we accept the money from a katan, m'd'oreisa he can't be makneh an object and therefore the money m'd'oreisa will never belong to hekdesh. It would then come out that the korbonos bought with the money are korbonos yachid and not korbonos tzibbur.

There are a few mehalchim to answer this question.

Sha'ar HaMelech

The Sha'ar HaMelech (Shekalim 1:5) writes that the coin the katan gives is batul with all the other coins. Even though Tosafos in Me'ilah says money is not batul, nevertheless this is only m'd'rabanan. The Rashba says that m'd'oreisa bitul applies to everything. Therefore, in our case the katan's kinyan works m'd'rabanan and on a d'oreisa level we can rely on bittul.

Avnei Miluim I

The Avnei Miluim (siman 28) argues on the Sha'ar HaMelech. He says that bittul does not work by money. The reason is because by money we are dealing with ownership and you can't be m'vateil someones ownership of something. (There is no bittul of teh cheftza like by issurim). The Avnei Miluim answers that at worst the coin the katan gave to hekdesh doesn't belong to hekdesh and hekdesh is stealing the coin. However, when hekdesh buys something with that coin whatever it bought belongs to hekdesh. For example, when you buy a lulav, there is no chiyuv to make sure the mony you use belongs to you. The reason is because if the money is not yours, the lulav becomes yours. Whether the money is yours or not is irrelevent. The same thing here and therefore the animal hekdesh buys is korbon hatzibbur.

(it is not so pashut whether the Avnei Miluim is correct in understanding bittul by money. The Bikurei Ya'akov on Sukka disagrees)

Avnei Miluim II/Ketzos

The Avnei Miluim (also found in the Ketzos) suggest a different answer. He raises the question whether a kinyan d'rabanan can work for a d'oreisa. (For example, ma'mad shalshtan is a kinyan d'rabanan and the question is raised whether you can use the object to marry a woman). He brings a rayah from our case that it works. The kinyan from the katan is only d'rabanan yet it works to make it a korbon tzibbur m'd'oreisa.

Parshas Vayekheil: Women Building The Beis HaMikdash

2008-03-05T14:03:00.002-05:00

The Rambam paskens in Hil Beis HaBechira 1:11 that women are obligated to help build the Beis HaMIkdash. The Kesef Mishna writes that the m'kor is from Parshas VaYekheil which states that women contributed to the Mishkan. However, the Rambam also paskens that you can't build the Beis HaMikdash at night nor on Shabbos and Yom Tov. If so that would mean building teh Beis HaMikdash is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama and women should be patur. Why then are they chayav.

There are a number of approaches to this question

Sefer HaChinuch

The Sefer HaChinuch writes that building the Beis HaMikdash is a mitzvah on teh whole tzibbur and not on individual. Also, the Rambam at the end of Sefer HaMitzvos counts this mitzvah as one of those mitzvos applying to the whole tzibbur. If so one can argue that it is irrelevent whether this mitzvah is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama, since it applies to the tzibbur.

Beis Yitzchak/Turei Even

The Beis Yitzchak (Orach Chaim Siman 3) answers the question based on a Turie Even. The Turei Even in Chagiga 15b says that the issue of mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama only applies when teh zman is mevateil the mitzvah. However, when it is only mafsik/interrupts the mitzvah then mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama doesn't apply. For example, there is a question whether women are chayav to do semicha on a korbon. The Turei Even asks why don't we say it is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama since you can't do it at night. He answers that the mitzvah of semicha on a particular korbon only applies once in a person's lifetime. Once you do the semicha on an animal you never need to do it again. Therefore, if you don't do semicha on Monday and Monday night comes, the semicha of Tuesday is not a new mitzva-it is the same mitzvah which you didn't do yesterday. The only reason you couldn't do it Monday night was because the nigt interrupted your performance of the mitzvah. However, by tefillin, the mitzvah of Monday is notthe same mitzvah as Tuesday. It is a totally new mitzvah. When Monday night comes, the night is mevateil your Monday mitzvah-you can never do it again.

The Beis Yitzchak says that building the Mikdash is like semichas hakorbon. It only applies once-after it is built the mitzvah is over. Night is just an interruption not a bittul.

Kehillas Ya'akov

The Steipler has a similar mehalach in regards to why the petur of Shabbos doesn't make it a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama. He quotes a Sha'ar HaMelech at the end of pesulei hamukdashin (in discussing nosar) that if the mitzvah applies on Shabbos just that you can't do it because of issurei Shabbos then it is not a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama. In theory the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdahs exists on Shabbos it is only because of issurei Shabbos that we can't. This is not like tefillin where there are no issurei Shabbos preventing you from putting tefillin on. Rather, the Torah says the mitzvah itself doesn't apply on Shabbos.

Klei Chemdah (Ki Sisa)

The Klei Chemdah answers that it is only a mitzvah to have the Mikdash built and not too build it. Therefore, it can apply to women. (He actually rejects this answer but I mentioned it anyway)

Parshas Tetzave: The Urim V'Tumim

2008-02-20T11:45:00.003-05:00

There are a number of interesting questions that revolve around the Urim V'Tumin. The first and perhaps most important question is , what is the Urim V'Tumim made of?

This is actually a machlokes Rishonim.

Shittas Ramban

The Ramban (Shemos 28:30) as well as Rashi say that the urim v'tumim was the shem hameforash that was put into the Choshen Mishpat. The Ramban adds that there were two parts to the name-the urim and the tumim. First the kohein concentrated on the "urim" part of HKBH's name and the letters lit up. Mishpat. The Ramban adds that there were two parts to the name-the urim and the tumim. Then the kohein concentrated on the "tumim" part of HKBH's name and the kohein understood how to put the letters together. This shitta is also found in the Ritva in Yoma 73b. The gemara in Yoma has a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish if the letters stood out or just joined together. The Ramban and Ritva explain that according to their mehalach the opinions don't argue, they are just referring to different parts of the process. Although they don't spell it out, it makes sense to say that a kohein could be zocheh to the "urim" part (letters jutting out) and not the "tumim" part-the letters joining togther. This would explain what happened to Eli HaKohein when he misunderstood the answer he received. He though Chana was drunk and the letters really meant she was kosher.

Shittas Rambam

The Ramabm seems to hold that the Urim V'Tumim refers to the actual choshen. This is also the opinion of the Ibn Ezra (28:6). The Rambam in Hil Beis HaBechira (4:1) writes that ruach hakodesh was missing from Bayis Sheini but they made the urim v'tumim anyway since it was part of the bigdei kehuna. The Ra'avad asks 1) the gemara says both ruach hakodesh as well as the urim v'tumim were missing and 2) where do we see that the urim v'tumim was part of the bigdei kehuna.

The Kesef Mishna answers the Ra'avad that the Rambam held the urim v'tumim was the actual choshen. The way it worked was through ruach hakodesh (as the Rambam himself writes in Klei Hamikdash 10:10) but the actual urim v'tumim was the choshen. Rav Avraham ben HaRambam is also quoted as saying this opinion and there is a medrash that also holds this was (look in footnotes to the Mossad Rav Kook Ritva in Yoma 73b).

The Rambam also seems to pasken like Rav Yochanan against Reish Lakish that the letters stood out (as opposed to teh Ritva who saysthey don't argue). The Rambam is probably l'shitaso that the urim v'tumim refers to the actual choshen and therefore, he understands that there was only one way for it to work.

Brisker Rav

The Brisker Rav (Hil Klei Hamikdash 10:10) answers the first kasha of the Ra'avad. The Ra'avad had asked that the gemara says both ruach hakodesh as well as the urim v'tumim were missing. The Brisker Rav answers that there are two aspects to the urim v'tumim, the ability to ask it questions and the ability to receive answers. As long as the madreiga of Ruach Hakodesh existed, the kohein gadol had the ability to ask a question. However, just because he asked a question doesn't mean HKBH would give him an answer. In fact towards the end of Bayis Rishon, the B'nei Yisroel lost the zechus of receiving an answer from the urim v'tumim. This did not preclude the kohein from asking, since as long as he had his madreiga of ruach hakodesh he could ask. At a later point in time the madreiga of ruach hakodesh was also lost. After this the kohein gadol could no longer ask. This is what the gemara meant by the fact that we didn't have the urim v'tumim or ruach hakodesh during bayis sheini. The "urim v'tumim" refers to the ability to receive an answer and ruach hakodesh refers to the ability to ask. (ayin sham where the Brisker Rav shows how this is meduyak in the Rambam)

New Website

2008-02-20T11:37:00.003-05:00

I would just like to promote a new website that has just been created. The website is http://www.hochheimer.net/. It contains the shiurim and divrei torah of HaRav Mordechai Hochheimer shlita, a respected Rav from Rochester as well as shiurim from his wife, a noted mechaneches and educator, Rebbetzin Shira Hochheimer.

(For those who must know, they are my brother -in-law and sister).

Parshas Teruma: Why we have an Adar Sheini

2008-02-11T11:23:00.001-05:00

Before I start, I would just like to dedicate this post to "JL" and "Brother Ben". "JL", make sure you tell "Brother Ben" about this.

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way, here is the shiur.

In a nutshell, this shiur is just the Brisker Rav in Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 5:1.

The gemara in Sanhedrin 11a-12b discusses all the reasons why we are m'abir the year. The main 3 reasons quoted in the gemara is "aviv", "peiros ha'ilan" and "tekufa". The Brisker Rav explains that if we look at the Rishonim we see there is a fundamental difference in how to understand these reasons.

Shittas HaRambam

The Rambam on the other hand explains these 3 things as being centered around ensuring that Pesach falls out in the spring season and the lunar year match up to the solar year. "aviv" refers to the fact that it will still be winter, "tekufa" means that we want tekufas nissan to be after Pesach and "peiros ha'ilan" means that the fruits are not ripening on time. The Rambam refers to these reasons as "simanim", meaning that the main factor is that we want Pesach to be in the spring and the solar and lunar year to be in sync. The signs that we look for to tell us if this will happen are these 3 signs.

Shittas Rashi

Rashi on the other hand expains these reason as being 3 independent reasons relating to the 3 regalim. "aviv" refers to the fact that we want the grain to be ready so we can bring a korbon omer, "peiros ha'ilan" refers to the fact that we wantthe fruits to be ready so we can bring bikkurim and "tekufa" refers to the fact that we want Sukkos to fall out after tekufas tamuz.
According to Rashi, adding an extra month isn't just to ensure that Pesach is in the spring but rather we have 3 different reasons.

Nafka Mina

1) How many simanim do you need?

Rashi holds you need 2 simanim. The Rambam holds tekufa alone is enough of a siman but if you are using the other simanim then you need two. The reason is that according to the Rambam, these reasons are only simanim that he year is not in sunc. Tee siman of tekufa is a strong enough siman by itself. The other simanim are weaker and you need both of them. Rashi holds these 3 reasons are actual reasons and you need 2 reasons to add an extra month.

2) Adding a month during shemitta.

Besides these three reasons, the gemara lists certain tzarchei tzibbur which would allow Sanhderin to add an extra month. For example, if the roads need to be fixed up to allow people to be olah regel, you can dd an extar month. The gemara also says we don't add an extra month during Shemitta. The Rambam paskens that regarding Shemittah it depends why you are adding the month. If it is because of teh three main reasons, we add a month even in Shemitta. But if it is for tzarchei tzibbur we don't add a month.

The Brisker Rav explains that when it comes to ensuring the lunar year and solar year is in sync, so that supersedes Shemitta because that is a din. But when it comes to tzarchei tzibbur, just like we are m'abbir the year l'tzorech so too we can refuse to add a month l'tzorech and in Shemitta it is l'tzorech not to add a month (either so people can plant earlier or so there will be grain for the korbon omer).

Rashi who holds all the reasons are "tzorech" based, will tell you you can never add a month in Shemitta.

The Brisker Rav has a couple more nafka mina's ayin sham

Parshas Yisro: Eating and Working before Havdala

2008-01-28T13:27:00.000-05:00

It is assur to eat or do any melacha before one makes havdala. The question is what is the geder of this issur? We find by mitzvos in general that it is assur to eat 1/2 before the zman of the mitzvah (ayin siman 235 by davening). However, if one had started eating b'heter it is mutar to continue. On the other extreme we find by Kiddush (siman 271) that even if one started eating b'heter one must stop for kiddush. The difference is that the seudah of Shabbos needs to be proclaimed a "Shabbos seudah" which one does by making kiddush therefore one must stop eating regardless of when you started. (ayin the Magan Avraham 271:6 and Rabbi Akiva Eiger for diff ways to explain this). The question is, what status does havdala have? In this we can possibly differentiate between doing work and eating.

Melacha before Havdala

The Griz Al HaRambam (Shabbos 29:5) writes that the geder of issur melacha before havdala is a machlokes Rishonim. The gemara in Shabbos 150B says one can say "Hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol" and do melacha. The Rif in Pesachim says you must make a full havdala and the Ran adds this includes making it over wine. The Brisker Rav writes that the Rif holds the issur melacha before havdala is like any other mitzvah-it is a gezeirah maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah. Therefore, in order to do melacha a full fledged havdala must be made. This is also the Rambam's shitta since the Rambam equates the issur achila to issur melacha. It would appear the Rambam holds just like the issur achila is a gezeira maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah, so too is the issur melacha. Other Rishonim hold that the issur melacha is an inyan of kavod Shabbos. Rahsi writes that you say "Hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol" as a way of escorting the king home. Making a clear break between Shabbos and Chol is a form of kavod Shabbos. This is enough to allow you to do melacha.

Achila before Havdala

From the Brisker Rav it seems he holds the issur achila is a gezeira maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah. However, I saw in the Harirei Kedem (vol2 sman 67) that the issur achila is similar to issur achila before kiddush. The point of havdala is to differentiate between seudas Shabbos and seudas chol. Therefore, one can't eat his seuda of chol until he makes this distinction. He brings a raya from Pesachim 105 ayin sham.

nafka mina coming soon...

Parshas Va'Eira:Moshe's Nevuah

2008-01-09T15:02:00.000-05:00

Everyone know that teh Torah proclaims Moshe as the greatest navi whoever lived or will live. The question though is when did Moshe attain his status as a navi. This question can really be divided into two parts. First of all when did Moshe become a navi and second of all when did the B'nei Yisroel accept him as a navi.

Regarding the first question it seems pretty straight forward to say that when Hashem spoke to Moshe by the burning bush that his nevuah career began. It is the second question, when did the B'nei Yisroel accept him, that is not so simple.

The Rambam in Hil Yesodei HaTorah Perek 7-9 discusses the idea of nevuah. The Rambam writes that the B'nei Yisroel's emunah in Moshe did not come from the osos and mofsim which he performed but rather through the experience of Matan Torah. To me it is not clear exactly what the Rambam means. If one looks in the Rishonim you will find two mehalchim and I am not sure which one the Rambam holds like.

Sefer Ikkarim

The Sefer Ikkarim in Ma'amar 1 Perek 18 states very clearly that the B'nei Yisroel did not believe in the metzius of nevuah before Matan Torah. They viewed Moshe as someone who was close to Hashem and could perform miracles when needed. However, Moshe was no different then Nakdimon ben Gurion who caused the sun to stand still or Pinchas ben Yair who split the Jordan. These people were not neviim but rather due to their special relationship with HAshem, they could perform miracles. This is how the B'nei Yisroel saw Moshe.
I would like to point out that I don't think this means that Moshe didn't receive nevuah before Har Sinai-he clearly did, it just means the B'nei Yisroel didn't believe it could have happened.

However, at Har Sinai, the B'nei Yisroel themselves experienced nevuah. Once this happened they realized it was possible for Hashem to "speak" to someone and from that point on they viewed Moshe as a Navi. Furthermore, the second revelation the B'nei Yisroel had at Har Sinai was that they heard HKBH give the Torah to Moshe. From this point on they realized that Moshe was HKBH's direct shaliach to give over the Torah and consequently noone had the right to add or subtract to Toras Moshe.

Drashos HaRan/Ramban

Both the Drashos HaRan (Drasha 11 and 12) and the Ramban (Shemos Perek 19) argue on this approach. The Ramban arguing on an Ibn Ezra who is ismilar to the Ikkarim asks, how can you say B'nei Yisroel didn't know about nevuah. The Avos had nevuah and there was a mesorah that the Avos were neveiim. The Derashas Haran also writes that in Parshas Shoftim Moshe says you can test a navi "kamoni". "kamoni" means just like Moshe showed B'nei Yisroel osos and mofsim before taking them out so too a Navi should show osos and mofsim. Clearly the Ran holds that the point of the osos and mofsim were to convince the B'nei Yisroel he was a navi.

The Ramban and Ran would agree to the second point of the Ikkarim. Namely, that the point of Har Sinai was so that teh B'nei Yisroel would relaize that Moshe was HKBH's direct shaliach to give over the Torah and consequently noone had the right to add or subtract to Toras Moshe.

Nafka Mina

The nafka mina between these two approaches would be the following. Were the B'nei Yisroel required to listen to Moshe b'toras navi before Matan Torah. The Rambam paskens that a person who is fit to be a navi and proves he is a navi has to be listened to. Did this apply to Moshe before Matan Torah? According to the Ikkarim, l'chorah not. Since the B'nei Yisroel didn't even believe in the metzius of nevuah, one can't expect them to have a chiyuv to listen to Moshe b'toras navi.

According to the Ran and Ramban, the B'nei Yisroel were required to listen to Moshe b'toras navi before Matan Torah. However, they would agree that before Matan Torah there was no such thing as Toras Moshe. Therefore, if another navi got up to contradict Moshe then one could presumably listen to that other navi. The Chiddush of Har Sinai was that the Torah became Toras Moshe and a navi can no longer get up and permanently change it.

Question on Ikkarim

I do have 2 kashas on the Ikkarim.

1) First of all the gemara in Sanhedrin 88 says a navi muchzak can be okeir the Torah temporarily. The 2 examples the gemara gives is Eliyahu bringing shechutei chutz and Avraham bringing Yitzchak on the akeida. Yitzchak had to listen to Avraham since he was a navi muchzak. According to the Ikkarim, how did Yitzchak know about nevuah. If he knew about it why didn't the B'nei Yisroel know about it in Mitzrayim.

Maybe one could answer that Yitzchak himself experienced nevuah. Therefore, since he knew about nevuah and since Avraham was a navi muchzak, he had a chiyuv to listen to Avraham.

2) The second kasha is that Moshe told the B'nei Yisroel the mitzva of Kiddush Hachodesh. If he wasn't viewed as a navi what chiyuv was there to listen this mitzvah?

Hitting a Jew: Part II

2008-01-04T09:48:00.000-05:00

Three Catagories of Hitting

The Rambam in Hilchos Choveil U'Mazik lists 3 catagories in the issur of hitting a Jew.

1) If you hit someone and don't cause damage more than a perutah you get malkos.

2) If you hit someone and cause damage more than a perutah you pay the damages and m'meilah you are patur from malkos.

These 2 catagories are learnt from the lav of "lo yosif l'hakoso" in Ki Tzeitzei. As the Rambam and Chinuch write "if it is assur to give a rasha an extra malkos then kal v'chomer it is assur to hit another Jew".

One could ask that "ein onshin min hadin" and therefore why would someone get malkos based on this kal v'chomer. One answer is found in the Bach (Siman 420) that there are 2 lavin in the possuk , "lo yosif" and "pen tosif". "lo yosif tells us you get malkos for giving extra malkos. We then have a kal v'chomer that it is assur to hit another Jew and the chiyuv malkos for that is from "pen tosif"

3) The third catagory is the issur of raising your hand to strike someone. The m'kor for this is Sanhedrin 58B and is learnt from Moshe's response to Dasan and Aviram "Rasha, lama sakeh rei'echa".

Issue D'Rabanan or D'Oreisa

The question on this third catagory is whether it is an issur d'rabanan or an issur d'oreisa. The Chinuch and the Ramabm in Lo Saseh 300 seem to imply it is only d'rabanan and that is the way the Birkas Avraham in Sanhedrin learns these opinions. The Mordechai in Sanhedrin also leanrs it is only m'd'rabanan.

However, the GR"A and the Sema in Choshen Mishpat 30 seem to hold it is an issur m'd'oreisa as we will explain.

The Rema paskens that if one raises his hand against his friend you are pasul l'eidus m'd'rabanan. The question is why are you only posul m'd'rabanan.

The Mordechai in Sanhedrin writes that you are only posul l'eidus m'd'rabanan because the issur is only d'rabanan. The Shut Beis Yosef also learns this way.

However the Beis Yosef in Siman 30 says that this is an issur d'oreisa however, the only time you are posul l'eidus is if you are chayav malkos. Therefore, since you are not chayav malkos for raising your hand, you can't be posul m'd'oreisa. At the same time it doesn't make sense to say that you are better than someone who does an issur d'rabanan and is posul m'd'rabanan. Therefore, the Beis Yosef says you are at least posul l'eidus m'd'rabanan. This is also the opinion of the Sema and the GR"A.

Chiyuv Malkos and Posul L'eidus

A similar question arises with one who hits his friend and causes damage more than a peruta. You are patur from malkos so would we say that you are not posul l'eidus? The Shut Beis Yosef says it would not make sense to say that if you don't damage the person you are chayav malkos and posul l'eidus but if you damage the person you are kosher l'eidus. Rather since the lav has a chiyuv malkos you are always patur l'eidus. The Maharit however seems to hold that if there is no chiyuv malkos there is no pesul eidus and therefore, if you cause damage you are still kosher l'eidus. The Shiuri R' Shmuel on Sanhedrin learns the Maharit like this and I think that is pashut p;shat in the Maharit. As far as the lomdus why you need a chiyuv malkos to create a p'sul eidus, ein kan m'komo but the Chavtzeles Hashoron on Parshas Shemos delves into it.

Cheirem and Pasul L'Minyan

Interestingly, the Rema in Choshen Mishpat Siman 420 writes that there is a "cherem hakadmonim" on someone who hits his friend and he is posul for a minyan. (The m'kor is a Maharam Rottenberg). The Chasam Sofer was asked if one should make a macha'ah against such a fellow. The Chasam Sofer answered that ein hachi nami you should but now a days it is not practical. Noone will listen to you and they will make fun of you instead. Furthermore, if we were going to be makpid on charamim we could pasul plenty of people. L'ma'aseh he suggests not doing anything since it would be counter productive. He uses very strong language in describing how we live in a time where people don't listen to leadership.

Nireh li, that I now understand why on Erev Rosh Hashana people do a hataras charamim. We see that there are things people could do that put themselves in cheirem and it could even passul you for a minyan.

Reshus to Hit

Rav Moshe writes that if someone gave you reshus to hit him, if it is a chavala k'tana it is not derech b'zayon and would be muttar. If it is a chaval g'dolah and would cause monetary damage that it is assur even with reshus, after all it is assur to even hurt yourself. I guess according t o this boxing would be assur. I wonder what Rav Moshe would say about tackle football on an organized level (high school or college) -is it a p'sik reisha to cause monetary damage or maybe most people don't get seriously injured so if you do seriously injure someone maybe it is a davar sh'eino miskavein.
Just food for thought.

Parshas Shemos: Hitting Another Jew (Part I)

2008-01-02T10:28:00.000-05:00

Due to the recent vacation I haven't had a chance yet to post last week's shiur, but better late than never.

This week's shiur was given l'iluyei nishmas my Zaidy, Michoel ben Dovid who was nifter last week on Shabbos Kodesh Parshas VaYichi. The levaya was on Monday December 24th.

In memory of my Zaidy, I just want to share one story that happens to tie into the shour. (It's not coincidental since I decided on this topic after hearing this story). My Zaidy, who grew up in Poland, was in the concentration camps during the war. He never spoke about his years duringthe war but I few stories did get out. Here is one story:

There was a capo in the concentration camp that was mistreating the Jews and my Zaidy got very upset. He wound up punching the capo in the face. Miraculously, nothing happened to him and the Germans didn't retaliate. Afterwards, all the Jews in the camp came over to him and gave him a beracha that the same hands that hit the capo should bring him hatzlacha. After the war my Zaidy became a glazer (he installed windows and glass) and he was very successful in running his own buisness. It seems the beracha came true.

After wriying this I decided to split up the post into two pieces. The next post will be a summary of the shiur.

Parshas VaYigash:Loshon HaKodesh

2007-12-19T09:52:00.000-05:00

Thw Winner Is...

I decided to speak about Loshon HaKodesh this past week. Thanks for all the suggestions from everyone and especially to Chaim Brown (aka the Divrei Chaim) for suggesting this topic.

Why is it called Loshon HaKodesh

There are 3 opinions why the language is called loshon hakodesh.

Rambam

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2:8) writes that it is called loshon hakodesh because there are no words in this language that describe the reproductive organs of a person.

Ramban

The Ramban in Shemos (30:23) argues on the Rambam. HE says according to teh Rambam it should be called loshon nekiah or loshon taharah. Rather it is called loshon hakodesh because this language is used for devarim that are kodosh. HKBH created the world with this language, the Torah was given with this language, nevuah was said in this language and malachim speak this language.

Shelah

On a deeper level the Shelah writes that all the letters of loshon hakodesh have an effect in shamayim. The letters and the words which these letters make up form the essence of each object and it is an expression of what that object represents in shamayim. For example, a table is called a shulchan. The word shulchan is not just an arbitrary word, but rather the letters "shin", "lamed", "ches" and "nun" (and in that order) represent the spirtual force that makes up a table. This is why the language is called loshon hakodesh.

This idea of the Shelah is found in many sifrei machshava. This is also the explanation given to explain what it means that Adam named all the animals. Adam knew the essence and spiritual makeup of each animal and consequently he gave them the hebrew letters that correspond to them.

Mitzvah to learn loshon hakodesh

Is there a mitzvah to learn loshon hakodesh? There is a Sifri in Eikev on the possuk "v'dibarta bam" that one is obligated to teach his child loshon hakodesh and torah. The Torah Temima writes that from here we see there is a mitzva to learn loshon hakodesh and he expresses astonishment that it is not counted as one of the mitzvos nor is it brought in Shulchan Aruch.He references a sefer he wrote on the topic called "Sefah L'Ne'amanim" which I actually found here The Torah Temima brings a few rayos to his idea. One raya is from the Rambam on Avos 2:1 The mishna says one should be careful to fullfill a mitzva kala like a mitzva chamura. The Rambam says a mitzva kala is learning loshon hakodesh.

Although noone says it is a mitzva to learn loshon hakodesh, Rav Moshe in Even Ezer 3:35 does say that it is a mitzvah to speak loshon hakodesh. However, Rav Moshe also says there is no issur to speak other languages as we see many gedolim spoke other languages.

The Chavas Yair (Siman 120) also writes it is important to learn the laws of dikduk but one should not spend an inordinate amount of time on it.

Kedushas HaLoshon

Although the language is called loshon hakodesh, it is clear from the Shulchan Aruch and poskim that the language itself has no inherent kedusha. The Tashbetz and the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz both poin to out that the Shulchan Aruch (85:2) says you can speak loshon hakodesh in the bathroom. From here we see that unlike a sefer torah, there is nothing inherently kodosh about the language. The MG"A does write that the Sefer Chassidim says one should be makpid not to speak loshon hakodesh in the bathroom. The Chasam Sofer (notes to Shulchan Aruch Siman 85) says that there was an old minhag not to teach small children loshon hakodesh so they won't come to speak it in the bathroom.

Loshon Hakodesh in Halacha

One other are of halach that loshon hakodesh is discussed is in Siman 307:16, The Rema writes that even though certain books are not allowed to be read on Shabbos, if they are written in loshon hakodesh it is muttar since one can learn fromn the language. This is similar to the hetter to read a Get on Shabbos since one can learn Hilchos Gittin from it. The Taz and MG"A disagree with this Rema and the Mishna Berura is machmir.

An Experiment

2007-12-11T10:50:00.000-05:00

I've never done this before but I thought I would try it as an experiment.

I am trying to come up with a topic for this week's shiur and I can't find anything that I haven't spoken about and grabs my attention.
Therefore, I am asking all my readers (which probably amounts to 1 or 2 people) for suggestions. The only requirement is that it has to somehow tie into the parsha and it should be halacha or lomdus oriented.

I can't promise that I will use any of the suggestions but I will definately consider any suggestion that I get.

Thank you in advance.

Kedushas Levi on AL HaNisim

2007-12-10T11:44:00.000-05:00

I promised a machshava vort on Al HaNisim. Although this is not what I had originally intended to write, I really liked this vort.

The Kedushas Levi asks that we say in Al HaNisim, rabim b'yad ham'atim..reshaim b'yad tzaddikim. We can understand how rabim b'yad ham'atim is a neis but how is reshaim b'yad tzaddikim a neis-isn't that supposd to happen. He answers that there can be 2 reasons why HKBH decides to punish tzaddikim. Either it is because he is mad at them for being reshaim and he wants to punish them or it is because they are fighting the tzaddikim. He compares it to a father who sticks up for his sons when they are being beaten up. In teh case of Chanuka, HKBH destroyed the reshaim precisely for this reason-because they were beating up the tzaddikim. The message is that we see how much ahava Hashem had for us that he caused these nisim to happen precisely for our benefit. The reason HKBH showed this level of ahava is because we went out of our way to be moseir nefesh in keeping the Torah.

Al Hanisim in Hashkafah and Lomdus

2007-12-06T10:22:00.000-05:00

Being that it is Chanukah here are 2 vorts on Al HaNisim. One b'toras lomdus and one b'toras hashkafa

first the lomdus.

There is an interesting difference between the addition of Al HaNisim. and the addition of Ya'aleh V'Yova which we add for Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov. When we say Al HaMichya we add in a line for Rosh Chodesh/Yom Tov but we don't add anything in for Chanukah or Purim. Why not?

Rav Shirkin in the Harirei Kedem explains that Al HaNisim is added as an extension of the berachas hoda'ah. It is not a separate tefilla but rather Chazal lengthened the bracha of hoda'ah in tefilla and in bentching by including this prayer. Ya'aleh V'Yova on the other hand is an additional tefilla which was added as a stand alone prayer.
Al HaMichya is a shortened version of bentching. Chazal took the words of bentching and condensed it into a short paragraph. As we said Al HaNisim is just an extended part of berchas hoda'ah and therefore when Chazal shortened this beracha amongthe words that they took out (or left out) was the Al HaNisim part. Ya'aleh V'Yavo or mentioning Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov on the other hand is an additional tefilla. Just like it was added to bentching it also has to be added to Al HaMichyah. That is why we have a line in there about Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov.

Stay tuned for the Hashkafa piece.

Parshas VaYeishev:Ta'anis Chalom

2007-12-05T16:09:00.000-05:00

The sugyah of ta'anis chalom is an interesting one. The gemara mentions it in 3 places. Ta'anis 12b and Shabbos 11a both say fasting over a bad dream is a good thing even on Shabbos. Teh gemara in Berachos 31b says if one fasts on Shabbos a gzar din of 70 years is torn up. Most Rishonim (the RAshba and Rivash) learn this gemara is referring to a ta'anis chalom and that otherwise it is assur to fast on Shabbos.

The obvious question is what is gained by fasting for a dream. The Ritva in Ta'anis (12b) provides a clear hesber. He says that we find some gemaras which indicate dreams are meaningless. However, from this gemara it seem that there is truth to dreams. He answers that when a dream personally affects a person then there is room to worry. It should lead a person to teshuva. Therefor, if one has a bad dream one has a right to worry that it is a message telling you to do teshuva. The appropriate response is to fast.

The question remains why one is allowed to fast even on Shabbos. The Ritva (as well as the Rashba in Berachos 31b) explains that not being able to fast over a bad dream will cause a person tzar. He will be so upset that he can't do teshuva that he will have no oneg Shabbos. For him fasting is an oneg Shabbos. However, according to the Rashba he must make up for not eating by fasting another day.

There is a machlokes Rishonim if this ta'anis is a chiyuv. The Rashba (Shut Rashba 132) says itis not but the Lechem Mishna (Ta'anis 1:12) understands the Rambam that it is a chiyuv.

As far as b'zman hazeh, the Aruch HaShulchan (Siman 120) writes how we are not on teh madreigah for our dreams to mean anything. At most it is not a message from HKBH but from "sheidim" created by our aveiros and therefore one does not need to fast. The Piskei Teshuvos brings the Chazon Ish and Steipler who say the same thing.

Making Havdalah For My Daughters II

2007-11-23T10:33:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned previously the issue of making the beracha of borei mi'orei haeish for my daughters is more complicated.

Issue #1. Even if a woman is chayav in havdala is she woman obligated to make this beracha.

Issue #2: The Chazon Ish writes in Orach Chaim Siman 37 that there is no arvus by the beracha of borei minei besamim or borei mi'orei haeish. Therefore, by besamim someone who has already made havdala could not make this beracha for someone else unless he also smells the besamim. However, when it comes to the beracha on fire it is not a berchas hanehnin and therefore getting ha'na'ah from the fire would not help. According to this you could never make the beracha of mi'orei haeish for someone else if you already were yotzei in havdala.

I should point out that it seems the Mishna Berura would argue on this. The Mishna Berura writes in the Sha'ar HaTziyon in Siman 297 that one could make a beracha on the aish even if you already heard havdala.

It would seem the following would come out based on the above.

a) if you are making havdala for a woman, since anyway it is a shaylah if she should make the beracha on fire and according to the Chazon Ish there is no arvus by this beracha, perhaps she should make the beracha herself or don't make it at all.

b) if you are making havdala for a man, then according to the Chazon Ish there is no arvus by this beracha and the person you are making it for should say it himself. (whether you can answer amein is a shaylah in the Shmiras Shabbos due to hefsek). It would seem according to teh Mishan Berura that you could make the beracha for someone else.

c) Making it for kids: This same Chazon Ish points out there is a difference between making a berachas hanehnin for an adult and a child. By an adult unless you get hana'ah you can't be motzei someone else in this beracha. By a child you can make this beracha m'tzad chinuch even if yuo get no ha'na'ah at all. Therefore, by the beracha on aish even if there is no arvus you can make it for a child since you can make the beracha m'din chinuch.

It would seem thast even for a girl you can make this beracha m'din chinuch on the tzad that woman can make this beracha. The Children in Halacha book actually says you can make this beracha for kids and doesn't differentiate between girls and boys. It might be better for the girl to make this beracha herself but I can hear more of a reason to make it for a girl than for a woman.

Making Havdalah For My Daughters

2007-11-19T10:20:00.000-05:00

I just realized I haven't posted anything since Parshas Lech Lecha. I have been busy at work and I was out of town last week. Hopefully, things are calming down and I should be posting more frequently.

This past motzei Shabbos my 2 older girls both under bas mitzvah missed havdala and I had to make it for them again. However, I initially wasn't sure if I could make it for them. (The truth is in retrospect I am not sure why I was so mesupak but here is what I found). The first question I had was the age old question of making havdalah for a woman when you have already heard havdalah. It is questionable if a woman has an obligation to hear havdalah. Therefore, if a man has already fullfilled his obligation, arvus might not apply and he might not be able to be motzei a woman. The Mishna Berura brings down both opinions and says it is better for the woman to make it herself. It wasn't clear to me what the Mishan Berura would say where the woman can't make havdalah. I wasn't sure which side the Mishna Berura liked better. (Maybe someone out there can convince me either way). The Aruch HaShulchan however is very adamant that if the woman can't make havdalah then a man can make it for her.

What was also interesting is how th e Mishna Berura and Aruch HaShulchan both viewed the "issur" of a woman drinking the wine. The Mishna Berura quoted an acharon that asked how can a woman make havadala if she can't drink teh wine. The obvious answer (at least to me) would be to say that what kind of question is that, not drinking wine is only a minhag and of course she can drink the wine when there is no other choice. This is what the Aruch HaShulchan says (using strong language). The Mishna Berura on the other hand seems to accept the question as legitimate.

The next question that I had was does the fact that my girls were not bas mitzvah make a difference. Again I am not sure why I thought this would matter but for some reason I was bothered by it. I found that when it comes to the beracha of besamim, if you are smelling the besamim then you can make the beracha. However, if for some reason you can't smell them, then the Shmiras Shabbos says that the ketanim should make the beracha after havdalah. Teh idea is that for them to make the beracha in the middle of havdalah would be a hefsek. (I have to look it up again to see what the sevarah is).

The beracha on the fire was also a little complicated and I need to look it up again before writing it down here. Stay tuned. Hopefully I will get back to it.

Parshas Lech Lecha: Safeik Mila on Yom Tov Sheini.

2007-10-28T10:43:00.000-04:00

Last week for Parshas Lech Lecha I spoke about the halacha of a baby born bein hashemashos and the bris would fall out on Yom Tov Sheini. By Shabbos (for example the baby was born Friday night bein hashemashos) or the first day of Yom Tov we don't do the bris until after Shabbos or Yom Tov. How about a case where the 8th day would be Yom Tov Sheini (for example the baby was born Monday night bein hashemashos and Yom Tov Sheini is Tuesday).

This is a machlokes between the Rosh who holds we don't do the bris and the Rambam who holds we do the bris. The Mishna in Shabbos says clearly that wed on't do a safeik mila on the 2nd day of Rosh Hashana. The Rambam learns from here that this halacha only applies to the second day of Rosh Hashana but on any other Yom Tov Sheini we do the bris. The Rosh holds that the reason the mishna did not mention Yom Tov Sheini was because the mishna was written in Eretz Yisroel. They only had an issue with 2 days Rosh Hashana. Having 2 days for Pesach,Sukkos, Shavuous was never a problem and therefore the mishna did not address that issue. . However, in Chutz L'Aretz where we have Yom Tov Sheini we don't do a safeik bris.

L'ma'aseh the Shulchan Aruch paskens like the Rosh not to do the bris and the Shach paskens like the Rambam.

The gedolei haposkim like the Noda B'Yehuda, Chasam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger all say we should do the bris. Interestingly, their reasonings are all different but their conclusion is the same. The Noda B'Yehuda calls it a s'fek sfeika (safeik if bris is today or yesterday and even if bris was yesterday maybe today is not Yom Tov). The Chasam Sofer says that the safeik d'oreisa of a bris should be docheh the safek d'rabanan of Yom Tov. Everyone does agree that if it is a vadai mila shelo b'lo b'zmano ((for example the baby was born Monday night bein hashemashos and Yom Tov Rishon was Tuesday. We don't do the bris Tuesday and even on Wednesday which is Yom Tov Sheini we don't do the bris since on Wednesday it is definitely not the zman for the bris.)

I also saw that Rav Ahron Kotler (Mishnas Rav Aharon Siman 11) says l'chactchila the bris should be done on Yom Tov Sheini. The sefer Yom Tov Sheini K'hilchaso quotes both Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l and Rav Elyashiv shlita as saying you should do the bris.

However, I spoke to a moheil and he told me noone does a bris on Yom Tov Sheini. I don't know why given the fact that most poskim hold you should do it.

Is anyone aware of a safeik bris that was done on Yom Tov Sheini?