Yevamos

Yevamos 122a: Giving the same name as a living relative

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 122a: When Rabban Gamliel heard this, he recalled that men were once killed at Tel Arza, and Rabban Gamliel had permitted their wives to remarry based on the testimony of one witness.

The Seder Hadoros learns that this was Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh remembering a story about his grandfather Rabban Gamliel Hazakein. Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer v. 5 YD 21) proves from this that in Talmudic times, a grandson was named after a living grandfather, as is the Sephardi custom today.

But Ashkenazi custom, brought in Sefer Chassidim, Section 460, is not to name a baby after a living relative, because people are superstitious about it, and Chazal’s rule (Pesachim 110b) is that when it comes to demons, witchcraft and the like, if someone is particular about it, he is affected by it.   

יבמות קכב ע”א: מתוך הדבר נזכר ר״ג שנהרגו הרוגים בתל ארזא, והשיא ר״ג נשותיהן על פי עד אחד,

שו”ת יביע אומר ח”ה חיו”ד כא: וכן הוא בסדר הדורות (ערך רבן גמליאל דיבנה אות ב’) כתב דרשב”ג שהיה מעשרה הרוגי מלכות קרא לבנו רבן גמליאל (דיבנה) ע”ש אביו רבן גמליאל בחיים חיותו.

ספר חסידים תנט-תס: כל הניחושים כנגד המקפידים וכתיב כי קפדה בא ובקשו שלום ואין (יחזקאל ז,כה). מכאן כל דקפיד קפדו בהדיה (פסחים קי ע”ב). ומתוך שאין אדם יכל להזהר בהקפדות נכשל. נכרים שקוראים לבניהם בשם אביהם אין בכך כלום והיהודים מקפידים על כך ויש מקומות שאין קורין אחר שמות החיים אלא אחר שכבר מתו.  

Sometimes, quarrelling in a marriage can be a good thing. There was once an Ashkenazi couple that had a newborn baby boy, and they disagreed on what to name him. Both husband and wife had fathers who had recently passed away. The husband wanted to name the baby Avraham, after the wife’s father, while the wife wanted to name him Moshe after the husband’s father! They went to ask a rav, who ruled in favor of the husband.

“But,” said the wife, “my grandfather is still alive and his name is Avraham Yitzchak.” She called him on the phone. The grandfather declared, “I would have no problem if the baby is named Avraham. I come from several generations of rabbis, and the family always gave names even if they happened to be the same as the names of living people.”

The rav consulted Rav Elyashiv, who responded, “Even though he may not have a problem, since most Ashkenazi Jews are makpid, you should not give him that name. One must not trifle with a Jewish custom.”

Source: Tuvcha Yabiu, Parshas Bereishis, quoted in Veyikarei Shmo Beyisroel p. 458

Nedarim

Nedarim 37a: A chazzan’s salary

YCLeave a comment

Nedarim 37a: One who hires someone to babysit a child, to guard a cow or to guard a field of produce, may not pay him for Shabbos. Therefore, if a loss occurred on Shabbos, he is not liable. But if he was hired for the whole week, the whole month, the whole year or the whole seven years, one may pay him for Shabbos. In this case, if a loss occurred on Shabbos, he is liable.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 306:5: Some forbid hiring a chazzan for Shabbos, and some permit. Rema: If he was hired for a year or a month (and he sometimes leads the davening during the week) it is permitted according to all.

Mishnah Berurah: The Acharonim say that the custom is to be lenient and hire him just for Shabbos. If one wishes to be strict, [one can either use the Rema’s solution and hire him to daven sometimes during the week, or else] one can avoid quoting a price, and whatever he receives will be considered a gift.

נדרים לז ע”א: השוכר את הפועל לשמור את התינוק, לשמור את הפרה, לשמור את הזרעים ־ אין נותנין לו שכר שבת, לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותןֹ ואם היה שכיר שבת, שכיר חדש, שכיר שנה, שכיר שבוע ־ נותן לו שכר שבת, לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותןִ.

או”ח ש”ו ס”ה: אסור לשכור חזנים להתפלל בשבת ויש מי שמתיר: הגה ואם שכרו לשנה או לחודש לכ״ע שרי (ד״ע) :

משנה ברורה: ויש מי שמתיר. ס״ל דבמקום מצוה לא גזרו רבנן על שכר שבת בזה ומ״מ אינו רואה סימן ברכה… ואם שכרו לשנה או לחודש לכולי עלמא שרי. פירוש, לשנה שיתפלל גם בימות החול ומשלם לו לחודש או לשבוע בבת אחת. ועיין באחרונים שכתבו שנוהגים להקל לשכור לשבתות לחוד והחושש לדברי האוסרין לא יקצוב בתחלה ומה שלוקח אח״כ י״ל שהוא דרך מתנה.

 או”ח תקפ”ה ס”ה: הנוטל שכר לתקוע בר״ה או כדי להתפלל או לתרגם בשבתות וי״ט אינו רואה מאותו שכר סימן ברכה.

Rabbi Moshe Heinemann related that when he was in yeshiva in Lakewood, there was a bochur with a unusually nice voice, and the main shul of Lakewood wanted to hire him as a chazzan. However, he did not want to take the job because his main responsibility would be leading the davening on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and Chazal say that if a person takes money for working on Shabbos and Yom Tov, he will not see a siman bracha from the money.

Rav Heinemann and his other friends pushed him to go and ask the shailah to the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l. The Rosh Yeshiva said, “In Lakewood it is not easy to get a job. This is an easy job where you will daven on Shabbos and do an hour of choir practice during the week, with no strenuous work on your part. The Ribbono Shel Olam is giving you the opportunity to get married, have a parnassah, and sit and learn for many years. Since you will do it l’shem shamayim, you will see a siman bracha from it.”

But the bochur did not listen, because the Shulchan Aruch says you will not see a siman bracha from working on Shabbos and Yom Tov. He had a very hard time finding a shidduch. He sat and learned until age 28, and then he decided that if he had a job then it would be easier for him to find a shidduch. He did not really find such a great job. Eventually he got married in his thirties, did not have any children, and finally got divorced from his wife. He did not see any siman bracha.

Rabbi Heinemann concluded, “My Rosh Yeshiva told him to take the job and he would see siman bracha. This bochur did not listen because he thought he was smarter. When it comes to things that have to do with ruchniyus, halacha, or hashkafa, a person should not rely on himself. He should rely on people who are big experts, just as a person with a health question should go to a doctor rather than figure it out himself from a book. If he thinks he should exercise in a certain way because he read it in the book, while his doctor says he should not do that, otherwise he might get a heart attack, then he is not doing the right thing. The doctor is an expert in his field and says that the book does not apply to this person. A person should be guided by people that are greater than him, rather than thinking he is the smartest person in the world.”

[The two opinions cited by the Mechaber in 306 disagree over whether it is allowed to accept pay for chazzanus, but even the lenient opinion agrees that no siman bracha will come from it. It seems that Rav Aharon had two reasons for what he said: Firstly, the Mishnah Berurah says that the custom is to be lenient, and presumably that means that there will be siman bracha as well. Secondly, the Rema says that it is permitted (and presumably there will be siman bracha too) if one includes weekday work with Shabbos. Practicing with the choir was considered weekday work.

Perhaps the young man was hesitant to follow this psak because he thought that the choir practice was not independent work, but merely a preparation for Shabbos. Rav Aharon therefore assured him that because of his circumstances, he should not be strict, but rather accept the opportunity sent to him by Hashem.]

Shabbos

Shabbos 34b: Tampering with the writings of the Chasam Sofer

YCLeave a comment

Shabbos 34b: How long is Bein Hashmashos? Rabbah said in the name of Rav Yehuda who said in the name of Shmuel: ¾ of the amount of time it takes to walk a mil.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 261:2: Some say that one must start keeping Shabbos early, and the period when one can add is from the beginning of sunset, when the sun is no longer visible, until bein hashmashos, which is a period of 3.25 mil. One may start keeping Shabbos early for some or all of this period, as long as he adds some part of the definite weekday onto Shabbos. And the length of bein hashmashos is ¾ of a mil, or 1500 amos walking time, before nightfall.

שבת לד ע”ב: שיעור בין השמשות בכמה? אמר רבה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: שלשה חלקי מיל.

שולחן ערוך או”ח רס”א ס”ב: י״א שצריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש וזמן תוספת זה הוא מתחלת השקיעה שאין השמש נראית על הארץ עד זמן בין השמשות והזמן הזה שהוא ג׳ מילין ורביע רצה לעשותו כולו תוספת עושה רצה לעשות ממנו מקצת עושה ובלבד שיוסיף איזה זמן שיהיה ודאי יום מחול על הקודש. ושיעור זמן בין השמשות הוא ג׳ רבעי מיל שהם מהלך אלף ות״ק אמות קודם הלילה.

On the last page of one of the volumes of the Chasam Sofer’s commentary on Shas (the volume on Pesachim, Hilchos Pesach, Megillah and Lulav), we find the following words: “One must know that we hold that from sunset to the emergence of the stars is 24 minutes or 35 minutes, and we follow the stricter of the two … and the lighting of Shabbos and Chanukah candles on Erev Shabbos must be done before sunset, which means 35 minutes before the emergence of the stars…”

When the Chasam Sofer’s chiddushim were reprinted in 1954 by the Debreciner Rav, this paragraph was omitted. Some people protested against this censorship with a poster hung in Williamsburg, showing the original text side-by-side with the censored version, and saying, “Recently, people have arrived in this country keeping the chumra of their country of origin, to keep Shabbos until 72 minutes after sunset. Of course, they have the right to do so, and may they be blessed for it. The problem, however, is that they enter Shabbos late and do work after sunset, whereas the custom here is to start Shabbos 18 minutes before sunset. This creates confusion and disunity among religious Jews: one person is going to daven while the other is carrying his wallet and going to the mikvah. How do they square themselves with the Mishnah, “One must accept the stringencies of the place where he arrives, and one should not deviate so as not to cause fighting.”

And the main problem is that when [those following the earlier zman] publicized the Chasam Sofer’s ruling, it bothered these people so much that they had the audacity to tamper with the Torah of Moshe and tear out this page, replacing it with this falsified version. This is a tremendous, terrible chutzpah!!! We are upset at the Reform movement for removing prayers from the Siddur. But how are we any different, if we also practice censorship, and someday, if someone doesn’t like a halacha in Shulchan Aruch, he can simply omit it or change it? This leads to the destruction of all our holy sefarim.”

The Debreciner Rav wrote a letter responding that the sefer was censored by someone else without his knowledge. After the Debreciner Rav passed away in 1997, Rabbi Meir Amsel, editor of Hamaor, wrote that the Debrecener Rav had told him that the Satmar Rebbe had commanded him to delete this section.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Harfenes explained that the Satmar Rebbe was not practicing censorship here. On the contrary, it was the previous printers of the Chasam Sofer who had committed a falsification by inserting this section, which was actually the opinion of the Chasam Sofer’s teacher, Rabbi Nosson Adler. It was first printed by the Likutei Chaver Ben Chaim, quoting notes written by the Maharam Schick of what the Chasam Sofer told him in 1786, in his teacher’s name.

The Chasam Sofer himself disagreed with this ruling, as can be seen in his teshuva in Orach Chaim 80. There he was asked about when to make the bris for a baby born at 8:30 PM on Shabbos, the 28th of Sivan 5563 (1803), which he calls “bein hashmashos, on a cloudy day such that it was impossible to see whether the stars were out.” His response was that we hold like Rabbeinu Tam that bein hashmashos (the uncertain period between Shabbos and weekday) is the last ¾ of a mil, where a mil is 22 minutes, before the stars are visible. This period starts from the “end of sunset” (the term used by Rabbeinu Tam for the point in time that is 3 and ¼ mil after the sun sets below the horizon). Thus the uncertain period is between 71.5 and 88 minutes after sunset. He adds that the practice in these countries is that we do work on Friday until “an hour or 45 minutes” before the stars emerge. Thus we accept Rabbeinu Tam as the definite halacha, even to be lenient. We don’t take into account Rabbeinu Tam’s opponent, the Re’em, who holds that beis hashmashos is the last 16.5 minutes before visible sunset.

Now, on that particular day, the Chasam Sofer writes that nightfall was at 8:55 PM. The uncertain period thus began 16.5 minutes earlier, at 8:38 PM. If the baby was born at 8:30, then he was definitely born on Shabbos and the bris should be on Shabbos.

This teshuva, saying that we do work and light candles after sunset on Friday, and that Shabbos ends 88 minutes after sunset, definitely disagrees with Rabbi Nosson Adler’s statement that candles are lit before sunset and Shabbos ends at most 35 minutes after sunset. The teshuva was written in 1803, as opposed to the quote from his teacher which was written down in 1786, so it is more authoritative. Therefore, the Satmar Rebbe asked for the early zman quote to be deleted so as to more faithfully represent the Chasam Sofer’s opinion.

Source: Changing the Immutable, p. 104; Yisroel Vehazmanim, p. 873

[Why does the Chasam Sofer say that we do work on Friday until 45 minutes before the stars become visible, when actually one may work until 16.5 minutes before the stars? The answer is probably that the Jews of his time and place used to accept Shabbos early, following the Shulchan Aruch’s statement that one should add on to Shabbos. In any case, the fact that they worked after sunset shows that they followed Rabbeinu Tam; therefore the baby born 25 minutes before the stars emerged would be considered definitely born on Shabbos.

It also seems that the Chasam Sofer does not count 88 minutes forward from sunset to determine when tzeis hakochavim is; rather he goes by the actual appearance of the stars, and then counts 16.5 minutes backward to determine when bein hashmashos occurs. This is evident from his words at the outset of the teshuva that the baby was born “on a cloudy day such that it was impossible to see whether the stars were out.” Why not just determine tzeis hakochavim by counting from sunset? It seems that sunset was not visible from his location, or else it wasn’t clear to him which exact moment Chazal call sunset. Similarly, at the end of the teshuva he states that the stars came out at 8:55 PM that day, and does not state when sunset occurred.

It’s also notable that the Chasam Sofer doesn’t even mention the opinion, advocated by the Gra and later popularized by the Mishnah Berurah, that bein hashmashos begins at sunset. To the Chasam Sofer, the only two opinions on this subject were Rabbeinu Tam and the Re’em.]

Moed Katan

Moed Katan 25b: Naming a Son after a Father – Part 2

YCLeave a comment

Moed Katan 25b: Rabbi Chanin, son-in-law of the Nasi, had no children. He prayed for children and got one, but on the day his son was born, he died. The eulogizer said, “Happiness was turned into sorrow, rejoicing and sadness joined together. At the time of his joy he sighed, at the time that he was graced, his grace went lost.” They named him Chanin after him.

מועד קטן כה ע”ב: רבי חנין חתניה דבי נשיאה הוה, לא קא הוו ליה בני, בעא רחמי והוו ליה. ההוא יומא דהוה ליה ־ נח נפשיה. פתח עליה ההוא ספדנא: שמחה לתוגה נהפכה, ששון ויגון נדבקו, בעת שמחתו נאנח, בעת חנינתו אבד חנינו. אסיקו ליה חנן על שמיה.

A husband in Bnei Brak went to shul the Shabbos after his wife had given birth to a baby girl – their 12th child. “What should we name her?” he asked. “Whatever you want – surprise me!” said his wife. The husband decided that Rivka would be a beautiful and fitting name. The Mi Shebeirach was said, the name was given, and davening ended.

Coming in the door of his apartment, he announced the new name in a loud voice. “Rivka?” his wife looked at him, puzzled. “But we already have a Rivka!” Suddenly it dawned on the husband as well. He had so many children that he had forgotten the name of one of his older daughters, and reused it!

He went and asked Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein, who showed him a similar story about the author of the Nesivos Hamishpat, printed recently in the Sefer Zikaron Olas Shlomo. The Nesivos’s father, Reb Yaakov, was a great lamdan, famous for his hasmada and deep concentration in learning. At the bris, when the mohel turned to him, Reb Yaakov, in the midst of a sugya, thought he was asking for his name, so he responded, “Yaakov.” Thus the baby was named “Yaakov ben Yaakov.”

Apparently, the Nesivos’s father didn’t mind, and took no steps to change his baby’s name. On the contrary, it would be a Kiddush Hashem, leading to more dedication to learning. Whenever people heard the Nesivos being called up for an aliyah as “Yaakov ben Yaakov” they would recall how the story happened and they would be reminded of what true hasmada is.

Here too, perhaps having two daughters with the same name would lead to people remarking, “Wow, they raised such a large family that they could sometimes forget their own children’s names. We too should aspire to bring more children into the world!”

Source: Tuvcha Yabiu, v. 1 p. 37, quoted in Veyikarei Shmo Beyisroel p. 459

Kesubos

Kesubos 15a: Determining whether an adopted child is Jewish

YCLeave a comment

Kesubos 15a: When a woman was violated by an unknown man, if the majority of the city is Jewish and of good lineage, and the majority of visitors is also Jewish and of good lineage, then we permit the woman to marry a kohein. Although elsewhere we do not require two majorities, in matters of lineage the Sages enacted a higher standard. 

כתובות טו ע”א. הולכין אחר רוב העיר והוא דאיכא רוב סיעה בהדה, ואין הולכין אחר רוב העיר גרידתא, ולא אחר רוב סיעה גרידתא וכו’ ומי בעינן תרי רובי וכו’ מעלה עשו ביוחסין.

A 20-year-old frum girl in Flatbush once overheard her parents fighting, and in anger her father yelled, “You’re adopted anyway – who knows where you come from?” Shocked, the girl went to her grandparents and asked, “Is it true that Mommy is adopted?” They said, “Yes, it’s true. We came to America after the war and were unable to have kids, so we adopted your mother.” “But how do you know she’s Jewish?” asked the girl. Her grandparents showed her a certificate of adoption issued by the Jewish Family Services in a city outside New York State. “We adopted her from a Jewish organization and we were told she was Jewish.”

A copy of the certificate in her hand, she went to ask Rabbi Yisroel Reisman what to do. Rabbi Reisman made some inquiries and found that the rav in that city was a Torah Vodaas graduate whom he happened to know. The Jewish Family Services office was still in existence, although now it catered mostly to non-Jews. The two rabbis decided to pay them a visit and see if they would allow them access to the files.

Entering the offices, they found that the files were under the control of two Jewish women, one frum and one not. Rabbi Reisman began with the frum woman, “I won’t ask you to break the law, but if you could just show us where the files are and then step out of the room… we’re not violating the spirit of the law, since we’re not looking to spread any information further.” She agreed, but said the files from that particular year were located in the other woman’s office. The other woman didn’t agree to let the rabbis see the record, but she did agree to show it to her co-worker, the frum woman, who then testified to the rabbis, “I can’t tell you the name of the biological parents, but I can tell you it’s an obviously Jewish last name.” 

Rabbi Reisman now felt he had a basis for a heter: In the 1950’s, most people with typically Jewish last names were Jewish. And most people using the Jewish Family Services at that time were Jewish. That is two rov’s, two majorities, indicating that the girl’s mother is Jewish. But to make sure, he made an appointment to ask Rav Elyashiv on his next visit to Eretz Yisroel.  

At first, Rav Elyashiv began to outline the heter of the two rovs. But then he asked, “Did you hire a lawyer?” “No, said Rabbi Reisman. “Go back, hire a lawyer and see if you can get the record released.“ “And what happens if the lawyer is unsuccessful?” “Then you’ll come back to me,“ said Rav Elyashiv. “But I live in America, and it’s not so easy to come back,” said Rabbi Reisman. “Don’t worry, Rabbi Efrati is here and he will make sure you get right in.”

Rabbi Reisman went to Avi Schick, who recommended a lawyer in the state where the adoption took place. But the lawyer soon ran into a dead end. It turned out that according to the law in that state, it was permitted to release an adoption record only if both the biological parents and the child simultaneously request it. Since they don’t know each other, the odds of that ever happening are astronomically low. Moreover, the woman was in her 50’s, so her biological parents might not be alive.

In the end, the psak was to do a geirus misafeik – a conversion out of doubt. Rabbi Reisman asked Rabbi Reuven Feinstein if this girl would be permitted to a kohein, and he replied, “Yes. Mid’oraisa it’s permitted because in the 1950’s, the organization was servicing mostly Jews. The only question is whether you have a second rov, based on the name. This is a sofek in a D’rabanan, so we can be lenient.”

Ultimately, her younger siblings and her mother went through conversion too. For her brother, the beis din ruled that he needed only tevilah, not bris milah, because he had already had a bris as a baby. This is based on the opinion of the Ramban that if the milah was done for the sake of Judaism (i.e. because they thought he was Jewish), even though it was not for the sake of geirus, it’s good enough in cases of doubt.

Source: Rabbi Reisman’s shiur on Hilchos Niddah, Yoreh Deah 198:34

Moed Katan

Moed Katan 19b: A mourner shaving to avoid a great loss of money

YCLeave a comment

Moed Katan 19b: How do we know that a mourner is forbidden to get a haircut for 30 days? We learn it out from nazir using the word “pera”. Just as a nazir must go 30 days without a haircut, a mourner must do the same.

מועד קטן יט ע”ב: שלשים יום מנלן? ־ יליף פרע פרע מנזיר: כתיב הכא (ויקרא י׳) ראשיכם אל תפרעו וכתיב התם (במדבר ו׳) גדל פרע שער ראשו, מה להלן שלשים ־ אף כאן שלשים.

Rabbi Moshe Heinemann told the following story: There was a religious Jew who served in the US Army in World War 2, and rose to the rank of major. He attributed his survival to his wearing an amulet written by Rabbi Akiva Eiger, guaranteeing that no weapons would harm him. His superiors were all killed, and so he kept getting promoted to take their places, until he reached major.

After the war, he went into business. Business was not going so well for him, but then the army offered him a contract for $3 million, which would have kept his business alive for a couple of years and helped him very much. The problem was that the army officers in charge of the contract invited him to a cocktail party where he was supposed to say that he was interested in the contract. He was sure that if he went, he would get the contract, but ten days before this party, his father died. This party was to take place during his shloshim, when it is forbidden to shave. And being unshaven is an unforgivable sin in the army. He knew he would have to shave in order to attend.

He went and asked his rav if it was allowed to pay someone $10,000 for the honor of being the sandek at his son’s bris, in order to be able to shave. (The Chasam Sofer in Orach Chaim teshuva 158 permitted a man in his shloshim to shave in preparation for a meeting with a government official where a large amount of money was at stake. He required two other mitigating factors: the day of the shave would have to be Rosh Chodesh, and he would have to serve as a sandek that day.)

This rav, who was known to be a machmir, thought about it and, after some time, said that he would be lenient if two other rabbonim would be lenient as well. He did not want to take responsibility for paskening this shailah all by himself. The man realized that this must be a serious shailah, and so he decided not to pursue it further. He didn’t ask two other rabbonim; he simply decided that he would not shave, not go to the party, and the Ribono shel Olam would send him the yeshua in some other way. His business continued steadily downhill until it was finished.

“What is the moral of the story?” concluded Rav Heinemann. “A person is not really in a position to decide what is a midas chasidus and what is not a midas chasidus. The rav said he would allow shaving if two other rabbonim were to concur with his heter. It is true that maybe the great loss involved was part of the heter, but if that is the din of the Torah, why should you be more machmir? We do find the concept one should be stringent and not eat from an animal that was the subject of a rav’s psak (Chullin 37). But he should have returned to his rav and asked, ‘Do you think that it is the right thing for me to be machmir?’ If the rav had said that he should be machmir, then he would have known he was doing the right thing.”

Source: Ma Nomar, Hilchos Chol Hamoed, page 55

[What is the source for being lenient in the laws of aveilus in order to save a large amount of money? Rav Heinemann contends that it is linked to the concept that one need not give up more than a fifth of his income in order to fulfill a positive mitzvah (Rema Orach Chaim 656:1). Despite the fact that the laws of aveilus are stated as prohibitions, the Chasam Sofer evidently considered them to be positive in nature, enacted by Chazal in order to give honor to the departed.]

Kesubos

Kesubos 50a: Giving too much tzedaka

YCLeave a comment

Kesubos 50a: One should not give more than one fifth of his income to tzedaka.

כתובות נ ע”א: א״ר אילעא: באושא התקינו, המבזבז ־ אל יבזבז יותר מחומש.

Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Meisel, the Rav of Lodz, was known to give any money he had to tzedakah. They asked him, “Rebbe, how can you give away so much money for tzedakah? It says that a person is not allowed to give away more than one fifth.”

The Rav answered, “You are right. It is a terrible aveirah, and I was always very careful not to give away more than one fifth. However, one day I accidentally gave away more than one fifth. I did not know what to do. How could I gain atonement for this sin? I took the advice that Daniel gave to Nevuchadnetzar: Giving tzedakah will atone for your sin (Daniel 4:24). So I gave tzedakah to be mechaper for giving more than one fifth. Then I realized I did another aveirah by giving more than one fifth again, so I needed to give more tzedakah. I needed to keep giving away my money for tzedakah as an atonement until I had no more money left, and would be potur as an oneis.”

When he met Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, Reb Eliyahu Chaim praised his recently published sefer, Achiezer.  Reb Chaim Ozer asked Reb Eliyahu Chaim, “When will you write a sefer?”

Reb Eliyahu Chaim pulled out promissory notes from his pockets for loans he had signed for and said, “This is my sefer. I am so busy with tzedakah that I don’t have time to write a sefer.”

“My sefer pales in comparison to yours,” Reb Chaim Ozer declared.

Source: Mah Nomar, Hilchos Chol Hamoed, p. 44

[Notwithstanding his humorous answer, it would seem that Reb Eliyahu Chaim did have a legitimate reason for giving away more than one fifth. The reason why one is not allowed to give more than a fifth is because we are afraid he himself will become poor and will be a burden on others. As the Rav, Reb Eliyahu Chaim held it was the obligation of the people to support the poor. He would borrow and give to the poor, and he was famous for paying the Russian government’s fees to exempt boys from the draft. The community had the obligation to reimburse him because he was really distributing the tzedaka on their behalf.]

Chullin

Relying on a professional taster

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 97a: Rava said: At first I had a difficulty with the following Baraisa: “If a pot was used to cook meat, one may not cook milk in it, and if he did, then we check if the pot gave meat taste to the milk. If a pot was used for terumah, one may not cook regular food in it, and if he did, then we check if the pot gave terumah taste to the food.” In the terumah case I understand how we check this: we have a kohein taste it. But in the meat and milk case, who can taste it? But now that Rabbi Yochanan said, “We rely on a non-Jewish chef,” here too, we rely on a non-Jewish chef.

חולין צז ע”א: אמר רבא: מריש הוה קא קשיא לי הא דתניא, קדרה שבשל בה בשר ־ לא יבשל בה חלב, ואם בשל ־ בנותן טעם, תרומה ־ לא יבשל בה חולין, ואם בשל ־ בנותן טעם, בשלמא תרומה ־ טעים לה כהן, אלא, בשר בחלב ־ מאן טעים ליה? השתא דאמר רבי יוחנן: סמכינן אקפילא ארמאה, הכא נמי ־ סמכינן אקפילא ארמאה.

A commercial bakery in Baltimore, certified by the Star-K, had been using oil bearing the hechsher of another well-known kosher agency. One day, the mashgiach of the bakery saw that the oil had a dairy designation, which means it was milchig (i.e. made on machinery that had been used for dairy within the past 24 hours). The company had been using this oil for a while when it was certified pareve, and no one had noticed until now that the hechsher had changed to dairy. Seemingly, this would make the bread milchig and therefore treif, because Chazal outlawed milchige bread lest someone come to eat it with meat (Pesachim 36a, brought in Yoreh Deah 97:1).

The mashgiach consulted Rav Moshe Heinemann, who advised, “Bring the bread to a Sephardi to taste whether there is any milk in it or not. Since the Mechaber is lenient to taste milchig bread, and the Rema is stringent, we can rely on a Sephardi tasting the bread.” They took the bread to a professional taster. He first washed out his mouth with ginger ale in order to rinse out the other flavors in his mouth and then tasted the bread. They asked him if he tasted anything other than bread and he said, “It has a creamy taste.”

Source: Mah Nomar, Hilchos Kashrus p. 26

[In Yoreh Deah 98:1, the Mechaber relies on a non-Jew to taste food and the Rema disagrees. But the Shach there says that even according to the Rema, a Jew may taste food when it is permitted in any case, for example when a radish was cut with a meat knife and the Jew tastes it to see if it has meat taste. Once the Jew determines that it has no meat taste, it may be eaten with milk.

In this case, why was the bread permitted in any case to the Sephardi? Possibly because the Mechaber in Siman 97 says that although bread containing milk is forbidden, “if it was a small amount that could be eaten all at once… it is permitted.” The Rema there says that we rely on this when we make milchig bread for Shavuos. Between the lines, there is a disagreement here on the meaning of “a small amount”. The Mechaber understands that even if there was a lot of bread baked, as long as the person is eating only a small amount it is allowed. The Rema holds that only a small amount may be baked, such as that baked for a Shavuos meal. Therefore, only a Sephardi, who follows the Mechaber, would be allowed to eat the small piece of bread necessary for the taste test. Had he noticed no milk taste, then even Ashkenazim would be allowed to eat the bread, as per the Shach above.

Another point of this story is that even though there was no actual milk in the bread, only oil made on dairy machinery, that was enough to forbid it to be eaten with meat, and thus forbid it entirely. This was confirmed by the taster who was able to sense the milk absorbed by the oil from the machinery.]

Pesachim

Pesachim 36a: Bread that contains milk

YCLeave a comment

Pesachim 36a: Rabbi Yehoshua said to his sons, “On the first day of Pesach, do not mix milk into the matza. For the rest of Pesach, mix milk into the matza.” But didn’t we learn in a Baraisa that it is forbidden to mix milk into bread, and if one did so, the bread is forbidden to eat, lest one come to eat it with meat? – Here they made the matzo in the shape of an ox [so that it’s distinguishable from regular bread].

פסחים לו ע”א: כדאמר להו רבי יהושע לבניה: יומא קמא לא תלושו לי בחלבא, מכאן ואילך ־ לושו לי בחלבא. והתניא: אין לשין את העיסה בחלב, ואם לש ־ כל הפת אסורה, מפני הרגל עבירהִ וכו’ כדאמר רבינא: כעין תורא שרי, הכא נמי: כעין תורא.

Once, a company began to sell milchige bread with a reliable hechsher. Rabbi Moshe Heinemann asked the rav hamachshir how he could have permitted this. The rav responded that his rebbe, a well-known talmid chacham, said that just as the Gemara permits milchige bread when made with a distinct size or shape, the same applies if the word “dairy” is printed on the package. This would be sufficient to warn people not to eat this bread with meat. “And,” he added, “I discussed this with Rav Moshe Feinstein, and he agreed.”  

Now, as long as this rav was following his rebbe, Rabbi Heinemann couldn’t have any complaints against him. But when he added the part about Reb Moshe, Rabbi Heinemann suspected that something wasn’t right. Did Reb Moshe really issue such a lenient ruling? The Shulchan Aruch only mentions that changing the shape of the bread itself helps – not writing it on a separate piece of paper.

Rav Heinemann went and asked Reb Moshe if he had really said that. Reb Moshe replied, “No, I never said that, but I know how the mistake came about. The rav hamachshir had asked Reb Moshe if writing the word “dairy” on the wrapper would be sufficient, and I replied that it wouldn’t help because the bread is not served with the wrapper. The rav hamachshir must have understood from what I said that if you serve the bread with the wrapper, then it would be permitted. However, I was just saying that even according to his logic, it would not help to write that because people don’t serve bread with the wrapper. I myself hold that even if you serve it with the wrapper, it is forbidden.”  Rabbi Heinemann went back and told this to the rav hamachshir, who promptly removed his hechsher.

Source: Kuntres Mah Nomar, Hilchos Kashrus p. 89

The OU gives a hechsher on Thomas’s English muffins, which contain milk. Their original reasoning was that the distinctive shape of the muffins is commonly associated with dairy. However, later, as pareve English muffins have become common, that reason no longer applied. Still, the OU continues to certify the muffins because the amount of milk is less than one sixtieth and is thus nullified.

Source: oukosher.org

Rabbi Yisroel Reisman mentioned another rationale: since the company is not Jewish, no Jew would eat the muffins without looking at the hechsher. And since the hechsher says that it has milk in it (OU-D), that’s sufficient. Thus it’s not necessarily similar to the story above with Reb Moshe: there, the company may have been a well-known Orthodox Jewish bakery, such that people might eat the product without examining the hechsher.  

Source: Rabbi Reisman’s shiur on Yoreh Deah 97.

Menachos

Menachos 44a: Putting on tefillin every day

YCLeave a comment

Menachos 44a: Rav Sheishes said: Anyone who does not put on tefillin transgresses eight positive commandments (the Smag seems to have had in his text the words “every day”).

מנחות מד ע”א: אמר רב ששת: כל שאינו מניח תפילין ־ עובר בשמונה עשה (הסמ”ג במצות עשה ג’ גורס: בכל יום)

ברכות יד ע”א: אמר עולא: כל הקורא קריאת שמע בלא תפילין ־ כאילו מעיד עדות שקר בעצמו.

ר”ה יז ע”א: פושעי ישראל בגופן [שנדונים בגינהם י”ב חודש] מאי ניהו? אמר רב: קרקפתא דלא מנח תפילין.

Rabbi Dovid Tevel, author of Nachalas Dovid (1794-1861), told the following story. A wealthy man passed away, leaving a large estate. Among the possessions he left behind was a priceless pair of tefillin, written by an exceptionally pious sofer, who wrote them in a state of kedusha and purity, with painstaking concern for every detail of the relevant halachos. These tefillin were worth a fortune by themselves.

When the children came to divide up the estate, an argument arose over the tefillin. Each son wanted them and was willing to give up a part of his inheritance in order to receive them. But they could not reach an agreement on how much they were worth. Finally, they decided that rather than fight over the tefillin, they would sell them and divide the proceeds among themselves.

As long as the tefillin were in their possession, however, the brothers agreed to allow a younger brother, who was near bar mitzvah age, to use them. So the boy began putting on the tefillin, and somehow they remained with him.

He was always careful to use only these tefillin. He took them with him wherever he went and guarded them with great care. One winter, he had some business in a number of small villages, so he stayed at an inn on the road and used that as a base for trips to several nearby towns. He intended to return to the inn every night, but one day a sudden snowstorm forced him to spend the night in the home of a gentile with whom he was doing business. When he awakened in the morning, he found out that there was only one Jew in the town. He went straight to this Jew’s home to borrow tefillin and was given a very old and worn pair.

Although he was very apprehensive about putting them on – who could know who had written them – he had no alternative. At the same time, he resolved to return to the inn as soon as he could and put on his own as well. But his business kept them away all that day, and he arrived back at the inn late at night. That was the only time in his whole life that he did not put on his own precious tefillin, and he felt a sense of guilt and remorse about this lapse for the rest of his life.

The years passed and eventually, he went the way of all flesh and was called to the heavenly court to give an accounting of his life. The ledgers were opened, his deeds were examined, and an announcement was made in heaven: “This is a head that did not put on tefillin!” It turned out that the tefillin that everyone had thought to be so exceptionally holy and pure were not even kosher. And this was not a light matter: The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 17a) says that all those who descend to Gehinom eventually rise again, except for those who sin with their bodies, i.e., those who never put on tefillin.

The Jew was terrified. Fearsome destructive angels grabbed him and were about to cast him into the depths when suddenly an angel appeared and cried out, “Leave him alone! One time he spent the night in a small village and while there, he put on kosher tefillin. He’s not someone who never put on tefillin.” It emerged that the old and worn pair he had put on that day, of which he had been so suspicious at the time, was the only thing standing between him and that terrifying judgment.

Source: The Rosh Yeshiva Remembers, p. 76

[The Smag in Mitzvas Aseh 3 relates that he traveled to Spain in the year 1136 and spoke in front of crowds of Jews to encourage them to adopt the mitzvos of tefillin, mezuzah and tzitzis. Tens of thousands accepted his rebuke and resolved to keep these mitzvos. Among his points were that:

  • When Chazal say (Shabbos 49a) that tefillin require a clean body like Elisha Baal Kenafayim, that is only to wear them all the time, but to wear them during tefillah is something anyone can and should do.
  • The Gemara says (Menachos 44a) that anyone who does not put on tefillin transgresses eight positive commandments every day, since there are four places in the Torah where tefillin are commanded, and in each one there is a separate commandment for the Shel Rosh and Shel Yad.
  • Anyone who recites Shema without tefillin is as if he testified falsely on himself. (Berachos 14a)
  • A Jew who did not wear tefillin is called a sinner with his body, and he goes to Gehinom for 12 months and then becomes ashes under the feet of the tzaddikim (Rosh Hashanah 17a). Rabbeinu Tam explains that this means only when he deliberately and rebelliously ignored the mitzvah. The Rif explains that it means only if he never put on tefillin in his life. But, says the Smag, neither Rabbeinu Tam nor the Rif can prove that his explanation is correct. Therefore, one should be stringent.

Based on the above, it seems that the Jews in the Smag’s time had been relying on the Rif and putting on tefilliin only once in a lifetime. The Smag came and convinced them that they should put them on every day.

The Smag is the reason why the protagonist of our story was so upset that he had missed a day of wearing his father’s special tefillin. In the end, the heavenly court ruled like the Rif that once in a lifetime was enough to spare him from Gehinom. But the Smag may still have been correct that the mitzvas aseh is to put them on at least once a day. Reb Dovid Tevil may not have known what happened in the heavenly court, but perhaps he just meant to say that after the man died, they checked the precious tefillin and found them posul. He added the part about the heavenly court because he, Reb Dovid, paskened like the Rif.]