Author: YC

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

Gittin

Gittin 57a: A couple’s mesirus nefesh

YCLeave a comment

Gittin 57a: There was once a young betrothed couple who were captured into slavery by the gentiles, who married them. She said to him, “I ask you, please, not to touch me, because I have no kesubah from you.” And he did not touch her until the day he died. And when he died, she said to the others, “Say a hesped on this man who fought his yetzer hara more than Yosef, because Yosef’s challenge lasted only an hour, but my husband faced it every day. Yosef was not sleeping in the same bed, but my husband slept in the same bed. With Yosef it was not his own wife, but here it was his own wife.”  

גיטין נז ע”א מעשה בארוס וארוסתו שנשבו לבין העובדי כוכבים והשיאום זה לזה, אמרה לו: בבקשה ממך, אל תגע בי, שאין לי כתובה ממך, ולא נגע בה עד יום מותו. וכשמת, אמרה להן: סיפדו לזה שפטפט ביצרו יותר מיוסף, דאילו ביוסף לא הוה אלא חדא שעתא, והאי כל יומא ויומאֹ ואילו יוסף לאו בחדא מטה, והאי בחדא מטהֹ ואילו יוסף לאו אשתו, והא אשתו.

A few years ago, a Russian Jew known as “Reb Moshe” passed away. He left Russia after the fall of Communism, living out his remaining years in Boro Park.

R’ Mendel Rosenberg, of the Chevra Kadisha Chesed Shel Emes told the following story:

Reb Moshe’s funeral took place at Shomrei Hadas in Boro Park. Chesed Shel Emes did the taharah, and then brought him to Shomrei Hadas. There was barely a minyan present. Reb Moshe’s wife said, “I would like to say a few words.” She went over to the coffin and said, “Moshe, the reason we don’t have any children is because we lived in a place with no mikvah and not even a body of water that could be used as a mikvah, so you couldn’t touch me. You have no children who can say Yisgadal after you. Let the Eibershter say Yisgadal after you!” 

Source: Sefer Taharas Chaya

[On the Gemara’s story, the Maharsha asks that according to one opinion in the Gemara, a betrothed woman also has an automatic kesubah. (We can add that as the Maharsha himself points out, it seems the problem was only the kesubah, but not nisuin. But don’t Chazal say, “A kallah without a bracha is forbidden to her husband like a niddah”? The answer is that there were other Jews with them, the same ones who said the hesped, and they could have and perhaps did perform nisuin with the berachos. And a fully married woman definitely has an automatic kesubah, without the written document. Besides, they could have written a kesubah.) The Maharsha answers that the man was a slave and all his property belonged to his master; therefore effectively there was no kesubah because there was nothing to pay it with.

Does this mean that any man who is totally broke is not allowed to touch his wife? Possibly there is a difference, because at least the kesubah guarantees that anything he will own in the future will go to his wife, so the deterrent to divorce (שלא יהא קל בעיניו להוציאה) is effective. With the slave, on the other hand, anything he would ever own would belong to his master, so there would be no deterrent.]

On the story of the couple who had no mikvah, we can ask: how did they live together in the same house? True, the prohibition of yichud doesn’t apply to a niddah. The poskim give two reasons for that. The Mechaber (Yoreh Deah 195:1) explains: “Since he has had relations with her once, his yetzer hara will not overtake him anymore.” The Toras Hashelamim there says since he knows she will be permitted to him in a few days, he is able to conquer his yetzer hara. According to the Toras Hashlamim’s reason, in this case, where they might not find a mikvah anytime soon, they would not be allowed to be alone together. If we say that all poskim agree that we need both conditions (had relations already, and will be permitted later), then there is a problem with our story.]

Yevamos

Yevamos 121a: The Agunah of the Titanic

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 121a: If a man fell into water whose shore can be seen, his wife is permitted, but if the shore cannot be seen, his wife is forbidden.

יבמות קכא ע”א מים שיש להם סוף אשתו מותרת ושאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה.

שו”ע אה”ע יז,לב: ראוהו שנפל לים אפילו טבע בים הגדול אין מעידין עליו שמת שמא יצא ממקום אחר ואם נפל למים מכונסים כגון בור או מערה שעומד ורואה כל סביביו ושהה כדי שתצא נפשו ולא עלה מעיד עליו שמת ומשיאין את אשתו.

Among the 1500 people who died when the Titanic sank in 1912 was a young Jewish man named Shimon Meisner from Novopraga, a town in the province of Kherson, Russia. He left behind his poverty-stricken wife and three small children. The widow came crying to the rav of her town, Rabbi Yaakov Meskin, asking him to pasken whether she was permitted to remarry. She was also upset that he had instructed her sons not to say kaddish; he explained that agunah was a complex subject and it would take him some time to reach a conclusion; meanwhile, saying kaddish might mislead people to think that she had already received a heter.

Rabbi Meskin wrote a teshuva permitting her based on the opinion of the Mabit, cited in Kuntres Agunos (printed at the end of Even Hoezer 17), that only when the man falls into the water do we fear that he came up somewhere else, but when he was in the cabin of a sinking ship, and the water comes in and fills up the cabin, he is presumed dead, since the walls around him prevented him from escaping.

The Kuntres Agunos says that the Beis Yosef disagrees with the Mabit. However, Rabbi Meskin argued that since the entire chumra of “water whose shore cannot be seen” is Rabbinic in origin, we can rely on the Mabit here.

However, there is a problem with this. The Mechaber in 17:32 says that if a man fell into the ocean and later a leg was found, we cannot assume it was his leg unless it has a clear, distinctive mark (סימן מובהק). Now, why do we need such a clear mark? Any sign should be good enough, since we are dealing with a Rabbinic prohibition! The Panim Meiros answers that the Mechaber is talking about a case where only one witness saw the man fall. On a Torah level, we would require two witnesses to testify that a man died. Relying on one witness is a Rabbinic leniency. In a case of “water whose shore cannot be seen” the Rabbis did not apply their leniency, so it goes back to being a Torah prohibition.

Here too, since there were no kosher witnesses testifying that Shimon Meisner was on the Titanic, the case should be judged as a D’oraisa and we should not rely on the Mabit.

To this, Rabbi Meskin responded that we have other reasons to be lenient. Mrs. Meisner received a letter from the Russian consul in London, reading, “To Mrs. Tzivia Meisner of Novopraga, in the province of Kherson: Your husband Shimon Meisner was traveling on the Titanic and drowned. I will try to send you a share of the donations collected for the bereaved families of Titanic victims.” This testimony that Meisner was on the ship, which the consul surely heard from the owners of the ship, counts as מסיח לפי תומו – a non-Jew giving information without the intent to permit the wife the remarry. The consul’s intent was only to provide her with a donation, not to permit her to remarry.

Rabbi Meskin continues for 7 pages; then he sent his teshuva to Reb Itzele Ponevezher for his approval, and he prints Reb Itzele’s response: also lenient, based chiefly on the Mabit.

Source: Sefer Beis Yaakov, by Rabbi Yaakov Meskin Hakohein, rav of Novopraga and later rav of Burlington, Vermont, Siman 49

[What is puzzling here is: how does the Mabit’s heter apply to our case? Why couldn’t Meisner have been on the deck of the ship, not surrounded by walls?

It’s true that aside from many wealthy people who had luxurious cabins above deck, the Titanic also carried poor immigrants from Eastern Europe in third class cabins. Perhaps Meisner was sleeping in one of those cabins on the night of the shipwreck. But then again, perhaps he was not. Rabbi Meskin does not quote any testimony of survivors who saw him there. The most we know is that he was on the ship, and that he was not among those saved on the lifeboats.]

Chullin

Chullin 66b: Copepods in the tap water

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 66b: The Torah says, “This you may eat, from all that are in the water, anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and rivers – those you may eat.” (Vayikra 11:9). This implies that the requirement of fins and scales applies only in seas and rivers. However, if the creature was born in a vessel or cistern, one may bend down and drink the water without removing the creatures.

חולין סו ע”ב: תאכלו מכל אשר במים מה ת״ל ־ שיכול, הואיל והתיר במפורש והתיר בסתם, מה כשהתיר במפורש לא התיר אלא בכלים, אף כשהתיר בסתם לא התיר אלא בכלים, מנין לרבות בורות שיחין ומערות ששוחה ושותה מהן ואינו נמנע? ת״ל תאכלו מכל אשר במים.

In Iyar 5764, creatures called copepods were discovered in all New York City water. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection had always been aware of them but didn’t bother to filter them out (as is done in other municipal water systems) because they don’t present a health risk. The copepods were visible to the naked eye as white objects, but without a magnifying glass, one could not tell that they were organisms (which had once been living but were now dead).

The Original Matirim

Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, Rabbi Shlomo Pearl, and Rabbi Elimelech Bluth ruled that they were permitted. Their reason was based on the Shach on Yoreh Deah 84:4, who says that if a creature was born in a cistern of water (in this case, the reservoir) and subsequently entered a vessel (the pipe), it is forbidden to eat if it leaves the vessel (comes out of the tap and onto the inside wall of your cup), but if it was born in a vessel and went into another vessel, it is permitted even if it comes out of the water. Here we assume the copepods were born in the pipes because of the principle of כאן נמצאו כאן היו (we assume that an object was always in its current location unless proven otherwise).

The copepods are killed by the chlorine, so the above assumption requires us to believe that they must have been born in the pipes before the chlorine was added. Rav Belsky checked with the Department of Environmental Protection and made sure the water enters a pipe before the chlorine is added. Also, he made sure that the water is in the pipe before the chlorine is added for a long enough time to allow for the copepods to hatch and grow to their observed size. Rabbi Yisroel Reisman and Rabbi Yisroel Pinchos Gornish concurred with Rav Belsky’s ruling.

The Osrim

Rabbi Feivel Cohen ruled that they were forbidden. Rabbi Hillel David also forbade drinking the water without a filter, but said that cooked food is mutar, and one may even cook food himself with unfiltered water. This is because the copepods fall apart, cease to be a “berya” (a complete organism) and become nullified. Although usually it is forbidden to intentionally nullify something treif, the Taz in Yoreh Deah 99:7 says that if your intent is merely to cook the food, and there happen to be insect parts in it, it’s allowed to nullify them.

Rabbi Hershel Shechter initially published a letter saying that these copepods are permitted because one cannot tell they are creatures with the naked eye. He assumed that just as one cannot recognize them when dead, one would not be able to recognize them when alive either. But when someone brought him a tray of water straight from the reservoir, full of wiggling specimens, he retracted his heter.

Later, a letter came out signed by Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rav Elyashiv and Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg saying that the NYC tap water is forbidden because the copepods are visible when alive, and the reservoir is not considered a bor (cistern; rather, it is a river). Moreover, all of the original matirim, except for Rav Belsky, changed their position.

Rav Belsky’s conclusion

Even Rav Belsky, who remained lenient, changed his reason based on the emerging facts. His original heter was based on the assumption that the copepods were born in the pipe. But experts testified that they can’t be born in the pipe, since the water is rushing too fast. It must be that they are born in the reservoir, then enter the pipe and then come out of the tap. Even so, Rav Belsky permitted the water since the copepods die when the chlorine is added, and therefore we can rely on a combination of two factors:  

  1. The reservoir has the status of a cistern, and there are Rishonim who hold that once dead, a creature remains permitted, even when separated from the water in the cistern.
  2. Not every cup of tap water contains a copepod; it is only a miut hamatzui (a significant minority of cups).

Yevamos

Yevamos 62b: He loved his wife too much

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 62b: If a man loves his wife as himself, and honors her more than himself, guides his sons and daughters on the proper path and marries them off young – Scripture says regarding him, “You shall know that there is peace in your tent.” (Iyov 5:25)

יבמות סב ע”ב: ת״ר: האוהב את אשתו כגופו, והמכבדה יותר מגופו, והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה, והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן, עליו הכתוב אומר: וידעת כי שלום אהלך.

The Vilna Gaon’s travels took him to the city of Amsterdam, where he was invited to stay in the home of a very wealthy man. The Gaon was exhausted, and he welcomed a few days of rest before continuing on his journey. The wealthy man took a liking to the Gaon and invited him to stay as long as he wished. The Gaon accepted gratefully because he found it comfortable and convenient in the man’s home, especially because there was a minyan in the vicinity three times a day. The Gaon stayed there three weeks, and then, thoroughly refreshed, he took his leave of his host.

The host parted with him with great reluctance and escorted him from his home with pomp and fanfare. As the wagon was about to leave, the wealthy man stepped forward for one last word with the Gaon. “Over the last three weeks,” he said, “I have become convinced that you are one of the great scholars of the Jewish people. I have seen how you conducted yourself and how you spent all your time learning. So, if you don’t mind, I would like your advice. You have also had the opportunity to observe me and my household. Do you approve of what you have seen? Is there anything you would have me change?”

“Heaven forbid,” said the Gaon. “You have a beautiful home. May the Almighty give you strength to continue in this way forever. However, since you ask, I will mention one thing. Our sages speak about a man who loves his wife as he loves himself. That means it should be the same and not more. A man’s respect for his wife should exceed his respect for himself, but with regard to love, they should be the same. This is the Talmud’s guideline. In your home, I saw something else. I saw you bring her water to wash her hands. I saw you bring her coffee to her bedroom, when you yourself do not even drink coffee. This is the only flaw I noticed.”

“Let me explain,” said the man. “It goes back to my childhood. I come from a distinguished family and my father was a well-known Talmid Chacham, but he was not a wealthy man. When I was nine years old, my father arranged a match for me with the nine-year-old daughter of a wealthy man who lived not far from our town.

The marriage would take place when we reached the age of fifteen. My prospective father-in-law agreed to give his daughter a handsome dowry and to support us. In the meantime, he paid for my clothes and shoes, and he hired a private tutor for me. I made great progress in my learning during those years.

“Just when I was turning fifteen, my prospective father-in-law’s fortunes took a turn for the worse, unknown to us, and he basically lost his money. When the date set for the marriage drew closer, my father went to see him and discuss his commitments to me. He admitted that he could not he could not fulfill them, and the engagement was broken. A short while later, I became engaged to the daughter of another wealthy man who lived in a nearby village. We were married, and not long afterward, I fell ill.

“My father-in-law spent a lot of money on doctors and medicines, but it was all to no avail. Seeing no hope for my recovery, my father-in-law sent me off to the communal poorhouse. I lay there in my sick bed, getting worse and worse every day. My father-in-law came and asked me to give a get to my wife, which I consented to do.

“Eventually, my condition stabilized, but I was still sickly and debilitated, barely able to walk under my own power. One day, a beggar came over to me in the poorhouse and said, ‘It is obvious that you are a Talmid Chacham, and you are extremely poor. I would like to make a proposal. You and I will form a team. I will rent a wagon and transport you from village to village. You will answer people’s questions, and they will give us money.’ I agreed, and this is what we did. We used to come to a town with me lying in the wagon, too weak to walk on my own power. I would explain a difficult Tosafos or a piece of Maharsha to the people, and they would give us more money than they gave the other beggars. We did rather well for ourselves considering our situation.

One day, we came across another beggar who was doing virtually the same thing we were. He was transporting his daughter in a wagon. She was also, apparently, too weak to walk on her own power. He went from house to house, and people took pity on his stricken daughter and gave generously. At my partner’s urging, we made a broader partnership. We both went collecting with our respective wagons, and at the end of the day, we would pool our earnings and divide them equally. It was a good arrangement, and it worked well. After a while, it only seemed natural that the daughter and I should get married, even though we were both exceedingly infirm. We had a very small private wedding. After the chuppah, my new bride began to cry bitterly.

“’Why are you crying?’ I said. ‘How can I not cry?’ she lamented. ‘My father used to be a rich man. When I was nine years old, he selected for me an exceptional boy from a distinguished family. He took care of the boy for five years, dressing him and buying him shoes. Then my father lost his money, and the engagement was broken. Now look how far I have fallen. I am still young, but I am as sickly and feeble as an old woman. And I am being married to a beggar who is as sick and feeble as I am. And who knows what kind of a family you are from? Don’t get me wrong, you are a good man, but look how far I have fallen. Look what has become of me.’

“I was shocked when I heard these words because she was clearly speaking about me. I told her who I was and that she was my first bride. At first, she was incredulous, but after we spoke for a while, she saw that it was true. We were both overjoyed to have found each other again. Our fortunes turned right after we were married. We both returned to health, and we prospered. The Almighty helped us at every step of the way and blessed us with fine, upstanding sons and daughters. This then is my story. I know that I caused her years of anguish and that anything I do for her will not be enough to erase my debt to her.”

The Vilna Gaon nodded gravely. “In that case,” he said, “you should continue to do as you have been doing.”

Source: Dear Son, by Rabbi Eliyohu Goldschmidt, page 122, quoting Yeshurun

[The question is: why did the Vilna Gaon hold there was anything wrong with loving one’s wife more than oneself? Perhaps the Gemara just means that the minimum is to love her as himself, but one who wishes can go beyond that! Rabbi Goldschmidt’s answer is that loving her as himself shows that he sees the two of them as parts of one whole. Just as a person treats his right hand equally to his left, so too he treats his wife as himself. But if he treats her better than himself, it must be that there is an ulterior motive. As an example, he writes that he once saw an old man give up his seat on a bus to a young, healthy woman. He obviously needed the seat more than she did, but his attraction to her motivated him to do it.

The trouble with this explanation is that granted, doing an inappropriate favor for a strange woman may stem from the yetzer hara, but when the woman is his own wife, what is wrong with hoping to increase her attraction to him? Aren’t love and attraction the glue that helps keep marriages together? Perhaps Rabbi Goldschmidt meant that sometimes, his acts of service do not increase her feelings for him; they only satisfy his one-sided desire for her.

So this is the Gaon’s explanation of why Chazal say a husband should love his wife as himself – and not more. Of course, this story might not be so reliable; after all, many tales are circulated about the Gaon’s travels during his self-imposed exile.  

A different approach to this Gemara is possible. Let’s start with the question: Why does the Gemara say that a man should love his wife as himself, but honor her more than himself? What are the definitions of honor and love, and why does he need to honor her more than himself, but love her equally?

Rashi gives us two explanations of honor. In Yevamos he says זילותא דאיתתא קשה מדגברא – dishonor, or embarrassment, is harder for a woman to bear than for a man. Therefore, if there is a demeaning job to do in the home, such as taking out the garbage, he should do it rather than leave it for his wife. Similarly, if one of the children speaks disrespectfully toward him, he may waive his honor (אב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול – קידושין לב ע”א) but if he speaks disrespectfully to his wife, he must stick up for her honor and reprimand the child.

In Sanhedrin 76b, Rashi explains that honor means buying her jewelry. Similarly, the Maharsha in Yevamos says it means he should buy her more expensive clothing than his own. When a husband spends on his wife’s jewelry, he is automatically sacrificing other things that he could have bought for himself with that money. Both Rashi and the Maharsha are thus making the point that when it comes to honor, whatever brings her more honor brings him less honor. This is the meaning of “honor her more than yourself.” Honor her to the point where you put her needs before your own.

Rashi doesn’t comment on “love her,” but from our story we can infer that loving her means doing things for her and caring for her in ways in which he will not need to sacrifice. Serving his wife hand and foot does not cost him money. It strengthens their love, and he gains from it too.

According to this, Chazal mean that there is simply no way for him to “love her more than himself” because the more care he displays to her, the more he gains. He is always benefiting equally with her. Incidentally, we can derive another lesson from this story: the danger of breaking an engagement is real. One source for this in Chazal is the Midrash of the weasel and the well brought by Rashi on Taanis 8a. This is why it’s so important for both sides to sign a document saying that they release the other side from the obligations of the engagement. In some cases, they need to annul their vows before a Beis Din.]

Bava Kama

Bava Kama 27a: Drinking contact lenses

YCLeave a comment

Bava Kama 27a: If you place a vessel in the street, and someone comes and trips over it and breaks it, he is exempt from paying. Shmuel said: This rule was stated when he tripped at night.

בבא קמא כז ע”א: המניח את הכד ברה״ר, ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה ־ פטור… שמואל אמר: באפילה שנו.

A yeshiva bochur came to his dorm room later at night, very thirsty. Seeing a glass on the table, he filled it with water and drank it. He noticed a bitter taste, but didn’t think much of it at the time. In the morning, one of his roommates remarked with annoyance, “Where are my contact lenses?” Apparently they had been in the glass, soaking in lens solution. “I drank them,” said the bochur sheepishly. The roommate was very upset. “They cost me $200! You have to pay me for the damage,” he said.  

They presented the shailah to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who said, “You need to pay. Although it was an accident, the Gemara says אדם מועד לעולם בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצוןִ – a man is liable for any damage he causes, even if done unknowingly or accidentally (Sanhedrin 72a). Furthermore, in this case you noticed the bitter taste of the lens solution, and this should have alerted you to stop drinking before he swallowed the actual lenses.” But he advised them to ask his father-in-law, Rav Elyashiv to see if he agreed with the psak.

Rav Elyashiv did not agree, for three reasons: 1) It was not done as an act of damage, but as an act of drinking. 2) It didn’t even occur to the bochur that the cup contained contact lenses. 3) The owner of the contact lenses was at fault for placing such a valuable item in a regular glass, on a table which was meant for their common use.

Source: Divrei Siach, Bemishnasam shel Rabboseinu Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Chaim Kanievsky, published on Rav Elyashiv’s first yahrtzeit, p. 34

[Rav Elyashiv considered this case similar to tripping over a pot in the street at night. Pots are not usually in the street, and he could not see it well. Here too, contacts are not usually placed in a regular glass on a table, and he could not see them.

Furthermore, Rav Elyashiv may have meant the Gemara in Bava Kama 62a, in which a man kicked someone’s chest into the river, and it turned out to have contained a pearl. If people don’t usually keep pearls in a chest, only money, then the damaging party was not expected to think of the possibility that there might be a pearl there. Similarly, even if we were to blame the bochur for drinking someone else’s water, or whatever bitter drink he had reason to think might be in the cup, we can’t blame him for the contacts, since it would not occur to him that there were contacts there.]

Chullin

Chullin 95b: A bad omen

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 95b: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: The first business deal one makes after building a house, having a baby or getting married is an omen of his future success, even though one may not act on this completely as a fortune teller would. Rabbi Elazar said: This is only true of he did three good or three bad deals in a row, thus creating a chazakah.

Rashi: One may not rely on this fortune telling, but still, if he failed in three deals, he should not go out for business too much, because this is an omen that he will be unsuccessful.

חולין צה ע”ב: תניא, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: בית תינוק ואשה, אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן. אמר ר׳ אלעזר: והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני.

A young man named Yitzchak Ohevzion was interested in buying a certain apartment, but one of the other people living in the building came to him and said, “I would advise you not to buy it, because three deaths have taken place in that apartment. A young baby died, a man was murdered, and a woman died of an illness.”

Yitzchak went to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and asked him if he should worry about this. Reb Chaim thought for a moment, and then said, “Go and ask my father-in-law, Rav Elyashiv.” Rav Elyashiv said, “The house is not the cause of those deaths. You can buy the apartment and live in it.” The young man returned to Reb Chaim and told him the answer he had received.

Reb Chaim then said, “The Gemara in Chullin 95b says that we should worry about such things. ‘A house, a child and a wife, although one may not practice fortune telling, there is a sign. Rabbi Elazar said: This is only when there is a chazakah of three times.’ And see Rashi.”  But he added, “Now that my father-in-law said you don’t need to worry, you don’t need to worry. “

Source: Divrei Siach, Bemishnasam shel Rabboseinu Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Chaim Kanievsky, published on Rav Elyashiv’s first yahrtzeit, p. 33.

[Based on this, we can understand the Gemara in Taanis 29b: “A Jew who has a dispute with a non-Jew should avoid going to court in Av, because it has bad mazal; he should try to have it in Adar, which has good mazal.” Seemingly this is “nichush” – fortune telling. But the answer is that if you are not totally rigid about it – you are merely trying to schedule it for Adar, but if necessary you will agree to go to court any time – there is no problem.]