Chullin

Chullin 66b: Copepods in the tap water

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

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

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

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.]

Taanis

Taanis 25a: The mysterious chicken

Taanis 25a: A man once passed by Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa’s house and left some chickens. His wife found them, and he said to her, “Do not eat their eggs.”

תענית כה ע”א: מעשה ועבר אדם אחד על פתח ביתו והניח שם תרנגולין, ומצאתן אשתו של רבי חנינא בן דוסא, ואמר לה: אל תאכלי מביציהן.

Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik related that when he was a young boy, it once happened that a chicken started marching into his family’s yard every day, laying an egg and then leaving. His father, Reb Chaim, decided to find out where the chicken was coming from, so that he could return the eggs to their rightful owner. Reb Chaim followed the chicken and suddenly it vanished into thin air! “Maybe there is someone who owed me money and died before he could pay me back. This chicken could be his gilgul,” Reb Chaim suggested. He went and checked his notebook, and indeed there was such a person who had died recently.

The next day, when the chicken came, Reb Chaim came up to it and said, “If you are so-and-so who owed me money, then I forgive you!” And the chicken never came back again.

Source: Chashukei Chemed on Beitzah, p. 8

[In Bava Metzia 28b we learn that one who finds a lost animal, and is holding it while waiting for its owner to claim it, should use the animal’s products (e.g. the work value of a horse) to pay for its food supply. Thus Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was allowed to use the eggs of the chickens he found, because he was feeding them; he was being strict beyond the letter of the law. In Reb Chaim’s case, if the chicken had not been a gilgul, he would have had to return the eggs, since he was not feeding it.]

Yevamos

Yevamos 39b: Yibum nowadays

Yevamos 39b: Abba Shaul says: One who marries his brother’s wife for the sake of her beauty, for the sake of marital relations, or for some other ulterior motive, is considered as if he is having an immoral relationship.

Rema, Even Hoezer 165:1: Even if both of them wish to do yibum, we do not allow them, unless it is obvious that they intend to do it for the sake of the mitzvah.

יבמות לט ע”ב: אבא שאול אומר: הכונס את יבמתו לשם נוי, ולשום אישות, ולשום דבר אחר ־ כאילו פוגע בערוה, וקרוב אני בעיני להיות הולד ממזרֹ וחכמים אומרים: (דברים כ״ה) יבמה יבא עליה ־ מכל מקום.

אה”ע קס”ה ס”א רמ”א: ואם שניהם רוצים ביבום אין מניחים אותם לייבם אא״כ ניכר וידוע שמכוונים לשם מצוה (טור בשם ר״ת).

רמב”ם יבום וחליצה ד,יז: יבם שרגלו הימנית חתוכה אינו חולץ בשמאל ואם חלצה מעל שמאלו חליצתה פסולה , היתה רגלו עקומה לאחור או הפוכה על צידה או שהיה מהלך על ראשי אצבעות רגליו הרי זה אינו חולץ שהחולץ צריך לנעוץ עקיבו בארץ וזה אינו יכול ואם חלצה למי שרגלו כך חליצתה פסולה.

אה”ע קסט,לד: היתה רגלו עקומה לאחור או הפוכה על צדה או שמהלך על אצבעות רגליו אינו חולץ:

Yisroel Chaim and his wife Chaya lived in Jerusalem, and had no children. When Yisroel Chaim passed away in 1925 at the age of 35, the Beis Din asked Chaya, “Did your husband have any brothers?” “Yes,” she said, “he had one brother living in New York.” The Beis Din in Jerusalem wrote to a rav in New York, asking if he could locate the brother and help arrange a chalitzah.

The rav in New York managed to locate the brother. As the brother came into the rav’s house, the rav noticed that he was limping on his right foot. “Can you please take off your shoes and socks?” said the rav. The man did as he was told; the rav saw that his whole foot was bent backward, and he was walking on two of his toes. In such a case, the Rambam (Yibum Vachalitzah 4:17) and the Shulchan Aruch (Even Hoezer 169:34) rule that one cannot do chalitzah. And Ashkenazim, following the position of Abba Shaul, do not practice yibum nowadays. But then what was the solution for the poor widow? Was she to remain single for life?

The rav sent the question to Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzensky in Vilna, who replied, “The poskim such as the Shvus Yaakov, Knesses Yechezkel and the Beis Meir permit yibum even today in such situations. Even if the brother is already married, he may marry the widow; Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban on polygamy does not apply in this case. Furthermore, after marrying her, he may divorce her immediately, even without her consent. This is all cited as practical halacha by the Pischei Teshuva, Even Hoezer 165:3.”

Although the Shav Yaakov disagreed, invoking the rule that “anyone who cannot do chalitzah, cannot do yibum,” the other poskim argued that this rule does not apply when the chalitzah can’t be done for purely physical reasons. Reb Chaim Ozer adds that the Ritva in Chullin 92 says this explicitly. Therefore, the best solution for this case was that the brother in New York should marry his deceased brother’s wife.

However, if that was impossible, Reb Chaim Ozer said that if the man was able to push his right heel into the ground, even painfully, they could rely on a combination of two lenient opinions and do chalitzah with the right foot, and then again with the left foot (because perhaps in a case like this, the man learns to favor his left foot and he has the status of a lefty, who can do chalitzah according to some Rishonim).

Source: Achiezer 3:20

Berachos

Berachos 30b: Why a child cries during Shmoneh Esrei

Berachos 30b: Even if the king greets him, he may not interrupt Shmoneh Esrei to answer him.

Mishnah Berurah 104:1: Even gesturing during Shmoneh Esrei is forbidden, except to tell a crying child to keep quiet.

ברכות ל: אפילו המלך שואל בשלומו לא ישיבנו. כתב המ”ב בסימן ק”ד סק”א בשם השערי תשובה דאפילו רמיזא בעלמא אסור אם לא לתינוק הבוכה מותר לו לרמז לו בידיו כדי שישתוק.

It was the Friday night meal in the Mirrer Yeshiva in Jerusalem. That Friday had been Purim, so everyone was still in the Purim mood. Eliezer Papelow was asked to get up and say a few words of Torah. He said, “The Mishnah Berurah brings from the Shaarei Teshuvah that if a child is crying in the middle of the silent Shmoneh Esreh, one may make hand signals to him to be quiet. But if you look in the Shaarei Teshuvah itself, you will see that he does not say that the child was crying; he says the child was laughing. Why did the Mishnah Berurah change the case? The answer is that it has to do with the names of the sefarim. The Shaarei Teshuvah gives a case of a child laughing, because when it comes to teshuvah, a child has nothing to worry about – he has no sins – so he laughs. But the Mishnah Berurah says he was crying, because when it comes to mishnah, learning, a child has very little, so he cries!”

Pesachim

Pesachim 116a: Rabban Gamliel Haya Omer

Pesachim 116a: Rabban Gamliel used to say, “Whoever did not say these three things on Pesach did not fulfill his obligation.”

פסחים קטז ע”א: רבן גמליאל היה אומר כל שלא אמר שלשה דברים אלו בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik was once in Berlin on Shabbos Hagadol, and he heard a German rabbi speak. “The Gemara says,” said the rabbi, “that if Persians forced a man to eat matzah, he fulfilled his obligation (Rosh Hashanah 28a), although he surely did not recite the Hagadah. How is this consistent with Rabban Gamliel’s famous statement: Anyone who did not say these three things on Pesach did not fulfill his obligation: pesach matzah and maror?” The rabbi spoke for a long time about this question. After the speech, Rav Soloveitchik said to him, “You have erred. Rabban Gamliel means he did not fulfill his obligation of telling about the Exodus, but certainly he has fulfilled the mitzvah of matzah.”

The rabbi did not have a ready reply, but the next morning in shul he showed Rav Soloveitchik the comment of the Maharsha on Rabban Gamliel’s statement:

לא מצינו בשאר מצות דבעיא שיאמר בהן על שם מה, דסגי להו בברכה על המצוה, אבל טעם הענין הוא מפורש ברפ”ק דזבחים דכל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרין חוץ מן הפסח וחטאת דפסולין שלא לשמן וטעם הענין מפורש שם דלפי פגמם ורחקם מן הקדושה בעי טפי קירוב לקדושה דהיינו זביחה לשמה וע”כ אר”ג דגם אכילת הבעלים יהיה מפורש לשמה לקרב אל הקדושה.

“We don’t find regarding other mitzvos that one must say out loud why he is doing them. It’s usually enough just to make a bracha on the mitzvah. But the reason for this is explained in the first chapter of Zevachim. All offerings that were slaughtered with the wrong type of offering in mind are kosher, except for the Pesach and the Chatas. Because they are far from holiness, they require one to slaughter them with the right purpose in mind to bring them closer to holiness. And that is why Rabban Gamliel said that even the eating of the offering must be done with the right purpose in mind.

“An Acharon,” replied Rav Soloveitchik, “cannot say something unless there is a source for it in the Rishonim. In this case, the source for the Maharsha is a Ramban in Milchamos, at the beginning of Berachos, who says:

וזו היא ששנו בברייתא במס’ יומא הקורא עם אנשי משמר לא יצא ידי חובתו לפי שמקדימין וקורין קודם לזמן הזה… והיאך אפשר שהיו אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד מבטלין מצות ק”ש ואמת ויציב דאורייתא לגמרי…אלא ודאי מאי לא יצא ידי חובתו שלא קיים מצוה כהלכה שאלו מקדימין וקורין קודם שיכיר בין תכלת ללבן… ושנינו כיוצא בה כל שלא אמר ג’ דברים אלו בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו ולא שיהא צריך לחזור ולאכול פסח מצה ומרור.

The Gemara (Yuma 37b) says that one who says Shema with the kohanim of the mishmar does not fulfill his obligation, because they say it too early. Now, how is it possible that the kohanim did not keep the mitzvah of saying Shema, and Emes Veyatziv which is D’oraisa? Rather, it means that he fulfills his obligation, but not in the best way. As another example of this, Rabban Gamliel says that anyone who did not say these three things on Pesach did not fulfill his obligation, but he does not have to eat the pesach, matza and maror over again.

“So,” Rav Soloveitchik concluded, “that explains why if the Persians forced a Jew to eat matza, he fulfilled his obligation.”

Source: Mr. Stern from the Mirrer Minyan of Borough Park

[It’s interesting that the Ramban is essentially understanding Rabban Gamliel the way the rabbi in Berlin understood him: that the recital of the three things is part of the mitzvos of eating pesach, matza and maror. The only difference is that the Ramban says that you do fulfill your obligation, albeit not in the best way.

Rav Soloveitchik’s original response, that Rabban Gamliel is talking about the mitzvah of telling about the Exodus, is based on the Rambam (Hilchos Chometz Umatzah 7:5), who brings Rabban Gamliel in the middle of his chapter on telling the story of the Exodus, and concludes, “And all these things are what are called Hagadah.”]

Gittin

Gittin 45b: Giving an aliyah to someone who violates Shabbos

Gittin 45b: A sefer Torah written by a heretic must be burnt. Rashi: Because he certainly wrote it with idolatry in mind.

Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 6:8: One may not burn or erase a sefer Torah, but if it was written by a Jewish heretic, we burn it, including the names of Hashem, because he doesn’t believe in the holiness of Hashem and he did not write the name with Hashem in mind; he thinks the name is no different from any other word, so the name is not considered holy. And it is a mitzvah to burn it in order not to leave any reminder of the heretics or their actions.

אמר רב נחמן, נקטינן: ספר תורה שכתבו מין ־ ישרף. פירש”י ישרף־ דודאי לשם עבודת כוכבים כתבו.

רמב”ם הלכות יסודי התורה ו,ח: כתבי הקדש כולן ופירושיהן וביאוריהן אסור לשורפם או לאבדם ביד והמאבדן ביד מכין אותו מכת מרדות, במה דברים אמורים בכתבי הקדש שכתבם ישראל בקדושה אבל אפיקורוס ישראל שכתב ספר תורה שורפין אותו עם האזכרות שבו, מפני שאינו מאמין בקדושת השם ולא כתבו לשמו אלא שהוא מעלה בדעתו שזה כשאר הדברים והואיל ודעתו כן לא נתקדש השם, ומצוה לשורפו כדי שלא להניח שם לאפיקורוסים ולא למעשיהם.

It was early Shabbos afternoon in the basement of Shomrei Shabbos in Borough Park, where minyanim are held one after the other, every 20 minutes. In one particular minyan, the only kohein present was a man wearing a black hat who, the people said, was a mechalel Shabbos. The baal korei argued that this kohein should nevertheless be called up for the first aliyah because of the mitzvah of “v’kidashto” (sanctify the kohein by giving him the most honorable place), but the rest of the people there were against it. They pushed the baal korei and the mechalel Shabbos away from the sefer Torah by force, although he had already made the bracha, and called up a Yisrael.

Then someone said, “Wait a minute. This shul has a rav, Rabbi Yidel Tirnauer, who is upstairs right now giving a shiur. Why don’t we ask him what the shul’s policy is?” Two representatives went up to Rabbi Tirnauer and interrupted the shiur with this urgent question. The rav’s reply was, “They don’t have to call him up.”

[Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 3:12 and 22) rules that an atheist Jew may not get an aliyah, because to him saying the name of Hashem is just like saying any word, as the Rambam says regarding writing the name, and therefore his bracha is considered a bracha without Hashem’s name, which is not a bracha. If he does make a bracha, one may not answer amein. However, a Jew who believes in Hashem, but due to his desires or other pressures violates Shabbos, is allowed to get an aliyah. Still, Reb Moshe says that the aliyahs in the shul should be arranged such that he does not get an aliyah too often.

In OC 4:91:8 Reb Moshe adds that even if the mechalel Shabbos is a kohein, he should not be called. It seems he meant that even in the case when he believes in Hashem and can theoretically get an aliyah, one need not call him for kohein. Rabbi Tirnauer clearly followed this psak, saying that one need not call him (implying that occasionally, it is allowed to give him an aliyah if necessary, e.g. out of respect or appreciation).

In OC 2:50, Reb Moshe raises the question of whether Rashi disagrees with this ruling. Rashi says that the reason for burning the sefer Torah is because the heretic wrote it with idolatry in mind. If so, an atheist’s sefer Torah would not require burning, and perhaps his bracha is a bracha. (The logic would be that a name of Hashem recited without any intent – for Hashem or for an idol – is סתמן לשמה: it is automatically taken to mean Hashem.) However, Reb Moshe argues that in order to minimize the extent of the dispute between Rashi and the Rambam, we should say that Rashi only disagrees on the obligation to burn an atheist’s Torah. The Rambam gives the reason, “In order not to leave any reminder of the heretics or their actions,” and Rashi disagrees with this. But Rashi could still agree to the first half of the Rambam: that a name of Hashem written by a non-believer would have no holiness and one would be permitted (not obligated) to burn it. In Orach Chaim 215:10, the Mishnah Berurah cites a dispute between the Mechaber and the Gra as to whether one may answer amein after the bracha of an apikoros. In the Biur Halacha, he concludes that one should follow the Gra and answer amein, provided that he heard the entire bracha. Seemingly, this is against the ruling of Reb Moshe. But it may be that the apikoros in question there is someone who believes in Hashem but denies other principles of Judaism, whereas Reb Moshe is referring to an atheist.]

Pesachim

Pesachim 4a: Informing someone that her relative died

Pesachim 4a: Rav’s father was Rabbi Chiya’s brother, and his mother was Rabbi Chiya’s sister. When Rav came to visit Eretz Yisroel, Rabbi Chiya asked him, “Is Ayvo alive?” Rav said, “What about Ima?” So Rabbi Chiya asked, “Is Ima alive?” Rav said, “What about Ayvo?” Rabbi Chiya then said to his servant, “Take off my shoes…”

Yoreh Deah 402:12: If someone’s relative died and he does not know about it, there is no obligation to tell him, even if the deceased is his father or mother. And regarding this it says, “One who brings bad news is a fool.” And it is permitted to invite him to an engagement party, a wedding or any simcha, since he does not know. However, if he asks explicitly, one must not lie and say, “He is alive,” as the Torah says, “Keep far from falsehood.” Rema: Still, when the deceased left a son, it is customary to tell him so that he should say Kaddish. But for daughters, there is no custom to tell them at all.

פסחים ד ע”א רב בר אחוה דרבי חייא ובר אחתיה. כי סליק להתם אמר ליה: אייבו קיים? אמר ליה: אימא קיימת, אמר ליה: אימא קיימת? אמר ליה: אייבו קיים. אמר ליה לשמעיה: חלוץ לי מנעלי וכו’

יו”ד ת”ב,יב: מי שמת לו מת ולא נודע לו אינו חובה שיאמרו לו ואפילו באביו ואמו ועל זה נאמר מוציא דבה הוא כסיל ומותר להזמינו לסעודת אירוסין ונישואין וכל שמחה כיון שאינו יודע מיהו אם שואל עליו אין לו לשקר ולומר חי הוא שנאמר מדבר שקר תרחק: הגה ומ״מ בבנים זכרים נהגו להודיע כדי שיאמר קדיש אבל בבנות אין מנהג כלל להודיעם (מהרי״ו סי׳ י״ג).

It was June 15, 1987, Dovid Kaufman’s wedding day, and preparations were in full swing. The Kaufmans together with the kallah’s family, the Steinbergs, had rented out the biggest hall in town, Brightstone Manor, and the cooks were busy preparing the reception and wedding meal for 500 guests. The women of the family were at the hall from the middle of the day, getting their makeup and hair done. Of course, Dovid’s mother Chana knew that her mother could not attend. The last time Chana had visited her at the nursing home, she had been unable to get out of bed. Chana promised to visit her the day after the wedding and tell her all about it.

At 4 PM, the phone rang in the Kaufman home. Dovid’s brother Nachman picked it up. It was a staff member at the nursing home. “We’ve been trying to reach Chana Kaufman,” they said. “She must come right away – her mother passed away!” Absorbing the shock of the news, Nachman thought quickly. “My mother is out now. Don’t worry, I will tell her.”

After hanging up, he thought: what if my mother becomes a mourner right now? Will she be able to take part in Dovid’s wedding? Can she walk him down? How will she be feeling? Is it even right to tell her at a time like this? He decided to ask his rosh yeshiva, who was an experienced posek. He would surely know what to do.

“Don’t tell her,” said the rosh yeshiva. “There is no obligation to tell her and ruin her simcha. She will find out on her own tomorrow. And make sure that if any of the other wedding guests are aware, they do not tell her either.”

Source: Rabbi Yisroel Reisman, tape R-14 (All names are fictitious because the story was told without names)