Author: YC

In preparation for a new volume of Read and Remember, I am collecting stories on halacha topics.
Sotah

Sotah 12a: Just do your job

YCLeave a comment

Sotah 12a: When Pharaoh decreed that all newborn Jewish boys be thrown into the river, Amram said: We are toiling [to have children] in vain. He got up and divorced his wife, and all the Jewish men followed his example and divorced their wives. His daughter said to him, “Father, your decree is harsher than Pharaoh, for Pharaoh’s decree applies only to boys, while yours applies to boys and girls. Pharaoh’s decree takes the children only out of this world, while you take them out of this world and the World to Come. Pharaoh’s decree may or may not be carried out, but you are a tzaddik and your decree will certainly be carried out.”

סוטה יב. עמרם גדול הדור היה, כיון שגזר פרעה הרשע כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו, אמר: לשוא אנו עמליןִ עמד וגירש את אשתו, עמדו כולן וגירשו את נשותיהן. אמרה לו בתו: אבא, קשה גזירתך יותר משל פרעה, שפרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים, ואתה גזרת על הזכרים ועל הנקיבותִ פרעה לא גזר אלא בעוה״ז, ואתה בעוה״ז ולעוה״בִ פרעה הרשע, ספק מתקיימת גזירתו ספק אינה מתקיימת, אתה צדיק בודאי שגזירתך מתקיימת

Rabbi Elya Boruch Finkel zt”l asked: why did Miriam need to use these arguments? She could have argued simply that we must have children as we are commanded to do, and whatever Hashem does is His business.

Indeed we find two other places where this argument was used: 1) Adam used it to convince Lemech’s wives to return to him, after they had separated for fear that the flood would wipe out their children (Rashi on Bereishis 4:25). 2) Yishaya Hanavi told Chizkiyahu to get married and have children despite his prophecy that his children would be wicked (Berachos 10a).

R’ Elya Boruch answered that there is a difference between a Heavenly decree and a human decree. If one is afraid to have children because that will result in the children suffering from a misfortune that Hashem will cause, then he must know that the same Hashem who is bringing the misfortune also commanded you to have children. But if one is afraid the children will suffer from a human being who wishes to harm them, that is a good reason not to do the mitzvah.

This is similar to a question posed by Rabbi Yosef Aryeh Lorincz to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky: The Nefesh Hachaim 4:11 famously says that if for one moment there would be no one in the world learning Torah, the world would be destroyed. What if a person knew that he was the only one in the world learning, and suddenly a life-threatening situation arose? Should he stop learning to save the life? If he does, then the whole world would be in danger.

According to the above, R’ Elya Boruch said, the answer is that yes, he must save the life. He must do as he was commanded in the Torah, and should not worry about the world being destroyed, since he is not the one doing the destruction – Hashem is, and Hashem commanded him to save the life.

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 11a: Embarrassing Someone Who Smells Bad

YCLeave a comment

Sanhedrin 11a: Rebbi was sitting and delivering a shiur, when he smelled garlic. He said, “Whoever ate garlic should leave.” Rabbi Chiya got up and left, and then everyone got up and left. The next morning, Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi met Rabbi Chiya and said to him, “Are you the one who annoyed my father?” He replied, “Such a thing should not happen in Israel.”

 סנהדרין יא ע”א. כי הא דיתיב רבי וקא דריש, והריח ריח שום, אמר: מי שאכל שום ־ יצאִ, עמד רבי חייא ויצא. עמדו כולן ויצאו. בשחר מצאו רבי שמעון ברבי לרבי חייא, אמר ליה: אתה הוא שציערת לאבא? אמר לו: לא תהא כזאת בישראלִ

There was a daf yomi shiur in the city of Bat Yam at 5:30 PM, and one day a local butcher came in to attend the shiur, straight from the meat market, his hands and clothing stinking from meat. The stench was so powerful that no one was able to learn. The maggid shiur’s question was: should he approach the man and ask him to take a shower and change before coming, and the shiur would be scheduled a little later, or should they just cancel the whole shiur?

From this Gemara, it seems that Rebbi held it is permitted to embarrass the smelly person, while Rabbi Chiya held to cancel the shiur. But when they asked Rabbi Ahron Leib Shteinman, his reply was in this case, even according to Rebbi it would be wrong to embarrass him. Because in Rebbi’s case, who asked him to eat garlic right before the shiur? But here, the butcher was smelly because of his job and had no choice. Furthermore, if we embarrass him, who knows if we’ll ever see him again. Therefore, better to cancel the whole shiur. 9

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 22a: Chesed in the Bathhouse

YCLeave a comment

Sanhedrin 22a: No one may see the king when he is taking a haircut, when he is naked or when he is in the bathhouse, as the Torah says, “You shall surely place upon yourself a king” – his fear must be upon you.

סנהדרין כב. ואין רואין אותו כשהוא מסתפר, ולא כשהוא ערום, ולא כשהוא בבית המרחץ, שנאמר (דברים י״ז) שום תשים עליך מלך ־ שתהא אימתו עליך.

In Lublin, there was a Yid who would go to the bathhouse every Friday and distribute combs to all the people there. When the Lubliner Rav zt”l heard about it, he said, “I want to have a part in such a great mitzvah.”

A certain rav heard about this and laughed it off. He quoted a Gemara, proving that there is no mitzvah in this. The Gemara (Menachos 43b) states that Dovid Hamelech went to the bathhouse and said, “Woe unto me, that I stand without mitzvos.” If distributing combs would be a mitzvah, Dovid Hamelech could have done so and acquired many mitzvos in the process…

When the Lubliner Rav heard this comment, he said, “The Rav should forgive me, but it seems he forgot an explicit Mishnah, in which it says that no person may see the king while he is in the bathhouse (Sanhedrin 22a). If so, Dovid Hamelech could not have distributed combs, as there were no other people at the bathhouse while he was there.”

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 65b: Weddings in the second half of the month

YCLeave a comment

Sanhedrin 65b: Rabbi Akiva says: The type of forbidden superstition called “m’onen” means the practice of saying that certain days are luckier than others to embark on a trip, or certain days are luckier to buy merchandise.

סנהדרין סה ע”ב תנו רבנן: מעונן… רבי עקיבא אומר: זה המחשב עתים ושעות, ואומר: היום יפה לצאת, למחר יפה ליקח.

יו”ד קע”ט ב’ נהגו שאין מתחילין בב’ ובד’ ואין נושאין נשים אלא במילוי הלבנה.

רמ”א אה”ע ס”ד ד’ ונהגו שלא לישא נשים אלא בתחילת החדש בעוד שהלבנה במלואה.

A chassidishe Yid asked Rabbi Yisroel Reisman: “Is it allowed to make a chasunah on the 28th day of Sivan? That’s the only day I could find a hall available. Usually we don’t make chasunos during the second half of the month, but perhaps Sivan is different.”  

“I don’t know,” replied Rabbi Reisman, “but I’ll tell you a Hamakneh, written by the Baal Haflaah, Rabbi Pinchus Horowitz, who was chassidish. At the end of the sefer, in his comments on Even Hoezer 64, he asks why the Rema needs to say in Orach Chaim 551:2 that after the 17th of Tammuz we don’t make chasunos – isn’t that the second half of the month? He answers based on a teshuva from the Rema that the rule is that wherever he says נוהגין it means poskim taught that we should do so, but נהגו means that people just do it and we don’t stop them. Here, in the case of getting married in the second half of the month, the Rema (as well as the Mechaber in Yoreh Deah) says נהגו – we allow people to keep this custom. But the Rema never says that one is obligated to keep this custom.

A while later Rabbi Reisman met the man again and asked, “So when is the chasunah?” He replied, “Tu B’av.”

[It would seem that the Mechaber and Rema are telling us that it is allowed to keep this custom and there is no problem of לא לעוננו (superstition). The reason why it is not considered ניחוש and לא תעוננו is because we do it as a good sign, just as we anoint kings next to a spring (Beis Yosef, Yoreh Deah 179; Aryeh Devei Ilai Even Hoezer 18). A good sign is something that we aren’t particular about, but we just do to express our prayers that things will go well. A superstition, on the other hand, would mean refusing to get married in the second half of the month no matter what.] �

Megillah

Megillah 13b: Do live animals emit taste into a food?

YCLeave a comment

Megillah 13b: Haman said to Achashveirosh, “If a fly falls into a Jew’s cup of wine, he throws out the fly and drinks it, but if my lord the king touches it, he spills it on the floor and does not drink it.”

ואפילו נופל זבוב בכוסו של אחד מהן ־ זורקו ושותהו. ואם אדוני המלך נוגע בכוסו של אחד מהן ־ חובטו בקרקע ואינו שותהו.

The Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 94) tells a story took place in Frankfurt: a chicken flew into a vat of boiling butter and died there. A great rabbi (the Chasam Sofer does not give his name, but some say that it was Rabbi Nosson Adler, the Chasam Sofer’s teacher) ruled that the butter was forbidden and they could not even sell it to non-Jews. So they poured it out onto the street. Afterwards, someone reminded him that the Rema says that any milk and meat mixture that is only Rabbinically forbidden to eat, such as chicken and milk, is permitted to derive benefit from, and therefore may be sold to non-Jews. He replied on the spot, “Yes, it was permitted to derive benefit from the butter, but it was forbidden to sell it to non-Jews, because it absorbed the taste of meat from a live animal.”

The Chasam Sofer comments that it was clear that Rabbi Nosson Adler’s original ruling was not because of meat from a live animal; rather, he had indeed forgotten the Rema’s rule that it is permitted to derive benefit from chicken with milk. But Hashem does not allow a tzaddik to make a mistake, and therefore the ruling turned out to be correct for a different reason. Hashem placed this quick answer in his mouth to save him from embarrassment.

We see from this story, concludes the Chasam Sofer, that live animals can give taste to a mixture. Thus the chicken, while still alive, was giving taste to the butter and forbidding it to non-Jews.

The Chasam Sofer’s student Reb Boruch brought additional proof to this from the Rosh in Avodah Zarah 68b, who cites the words of Haman – that a Jew would drink wine touched by a fly – as proof that cold things do not give taste. But maybe there the fly was alive and therefore could not give taste! From the fact that the Rosh ignores this argument, it would seem that he holds that live animals do emit taste.

However, the Amudei Ohr argues that it is unheard of that an animal or person, simply by touching a hot food, should render it forbidden. Therefore the Steipler (Chullin 5) argues that in Rabbi Nosson Adler’s case, the butter was forbidden because some part of the chicken may have become separated from the chicken while the chicken was still alive. That limb, forbidden to non-Jews, is itself dead, and therefore it can emit taste. But a completely live limb, such a human finger stuck into coffee, would not emit taste and forbid the coffee.

As to the Rosh’s comment on Haman’s words, perhaps the Rosh assumed that the fly in question was dead, but a live fly would indeed not emit taste.

About

What is this site about?

YCLeave a comment

In 2006, I published Read and Remember, containing over 1000 true stories, each one teaching a lesson in halacha. Since then I have been collecting more stories in preparation for a second volume, but never had time to work on it. Now I’ve decided to start posting new stories here for those who enjoyed the book and would like to hear more. If you would like to see these stories in your email inbox, please subscribe by sending an email to readandremember2@gmail.com.