Author: YC

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

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

YCLeave a comment

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

YCLeave a comment

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)

Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia 50b: Never Steal a Lottery Ticket

YCLeave a comment

Bava Metzia 50b: If someone buys an item for the wrong price, if the difference was less than one sixth, the sale is valid. If it was more than one sixth, the sale is invalid. If it was exactly one sixth, the sale is valid but he must pay the difference.

בבא מציעא נ ע”ב: אמר רבא, הלכתא: פחות משתות ־ נקנה מקח, יותר על שתות ־ ביטול מקח. שתות ־ קנה ומחזיר אונאה.

There was once a poor orphan girl who didn’t have money to get married. She had a low paying job and she resigned herself to renting a room in a wealthy family’s house, using her salary to pay the rent and living out her life as an old maid. One day, her landlady came to her and said, “I am buying a lottery ticket. Would you like to buy one too? This may be your chance to have a better life.”

So they both bought one-dollar lottery tickets. A week later, there was a knock at the door. It was the lottery officials and they said, “Someone living in this house bought the winning ticket. The prize is $10,000!”

The landlady showed her ticket to the official, but he said, “No, this doesn’t match.” The landlady thought to herself, it must be the poor orphan woman’s ticket. She went to the orphan woman’s room, but no one was there. The ticket lay on top of her dresser. Suddenly, her yetzer hara got the better of her. She switched her ticket with the poor woman’s ticket and brought it to the lottery officials. It indeed matched, and she collected the $10,000 prize.

A few days went by and there was another knock at the door. It was the lottery officials again. They said, “Last week was the regular weekly drawing, but this week was the Mega Millions jackpot. And someone in this house has won $25 million. It’s not the same ticket that you won with last week. Didn’t you have two tickets?”

The landlady began to wish she had not exchanged the tickets. She went down to the orphan woman and confessed to her crime. “My ticket was the original ticket that would have won $25 million, but I gave it to you and took the other one. That’s how I got the $10,000 prize. Let’s switch back now.”

The orphan woman believed her, but wasn’t sure if she should give up on the $25 million. The two of them agreed to go and ask a rabbi, and abide by his decision.

The rabbi ruled that both prizes belonged to the orphan woman. The first prize belonged to her because the ticket had originally been hers. And the second prize also belonged to her because the landlady had willingly given up that ticket to her.

[The rabbi’s ruling seems incorrect because when the landlady switched the tickets, she was paying for a $10,000 item using an item worth one dollar (at the time). The transaction was invalid and the poor woman did not acquire the other ticket. Actually, we don’t need the Gemara in Bava Metzia to prove this point. The ticket exchange was done without the other woman’s presence or consent and therefore it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would seem, the correct psak is that the poor woman gets $10,000 and the landlady gets $25 million.

However, one could argue that the poor woman has the option of saying she doesn’t believe the landlady’s story, and she has the right to claim that the ticket in her possession was hers all along. The problem is only that she admitted to believing the landlady’s confession. Was this הודאת בעל דין – admission in a monetary case, by which she forfeits her claim? Perhaps not. Admission means stating a fact one knows to be true, such as saying, “Yes, I agree that I owe you money.” But here, she does not know that the landlady is telling the truth. Her trusting the landlady is just that – trust of a not-so-trustworthy person, out of a desire to avoid a fight over the facts. This is not an admission. According to this argument, the poor woman should get the $25 million and the landlady should get the $10,000.

Either way, it is incorrect to give her both prizes, since there is no version of the facts that would support that result.]

Shabbos

Two women lighting candles in the same house

YCLeave a comment

Shabbos 23b: One who always has candles lit will be zocheh to have sons who become Torah scholars.

Orach Chaim 263:1 Rema: A woman who usually lights two candles and forgot to light one week, must light three candles for the rest of her life.

שבת כג ע”ב אמר רב הונא: הרגיל בנר ־ הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים

או”ח סימן רס”ג ס”א ברמ”א: האשה ששכחה פעם אחת להדליק מדלקת כל ימיה ג׳ נרות (מהרי״ל)

Once a married couple was staying at the wife’s parents for Yom Tov, and the young woman forgot to light. Her husband went to ask Rabbi Eisenstein in Lakewood whether she now had to light an extra candle for the rest of her life. The rav responded with a story: someone asked R’ Moshe Feinstein if a mother and daughter in the same house should both light in the dining room or in two different parts of the house. Reb Moshe responded, “Before you ask me that, ask whether both of them should light at all. Maybe once there are candles lit in a house, there is no mitzvah to light more!” Rabbi Eisenstein concluded, “Since it’s not so obvious that your wife was required to light, now that she forgot, she is not subject to the punishment of adding a candle.”

Beitzah

Beitzah 22b: Burning incense in the home

YCLeave a comment

Beitzah 22b: Rabban Gamliel’s family used to burn incense in their homes on Yom Tov, but the Sages prohibited it. This was said regarding giving a good scent to the home, but smoking one’s clothing with incense to make it smell good is forbidden on Yom Tov according to both opinions.

ביצה כב ע”ב: מניחין את המוגמר ביום טוב…וחכמים אוסרין… אמר רב אסי: מחלוקת להריח, אבל לגמר ־ אסור.

Rabbi Nissan Shalomayev, Rav of the Bucharian community in Hillcrest was asked whether it is allowed to use the plant called esfand to ward off the evil eye, as practiced in some Bucharian Jewish households. To use esfand, the seeds are heated in a pan until they begin to produce smoke. One then circles this smoke around the head of a person while reciting an ancient mantra. After this, the smoke is taken throughout the different parts of the house to allegedly fight off the evil eye.

Rabbi Shalomayev researched the matter and found that this ritual is derived from the Zoroastrian pagan religion. Today, many Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries like India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran use this plant, particularly for removing the evil eye from children, newborns, mothers, and those returning from funerals. In many of these countries, one can find an espandi (one performing the esfand ritual) selling his services on the streets.

Even if the people burning the esfand are just doing it for the good smell, it is forbidden as the Shulchan Aruch says, “There are some who forbid burning a good-smelling spice in the house, unless it is done to counteract a bad odor.” (Yoreh Deah 179:18) The Shach explains that the reason is because it appears as if he is burning the incense to a demon.

Source: https://bukharianjewishlink.com/index.php/rabbi-s-thoughts/5436-using-ispandud-esfand-plant-to-remove-the-evil-eye

[The question is that we indeed find in our Gemara that it was common practice to burn spices (mugmar) in the house for their fragrant smell. The Minchas Yitzchok (4:86) answers that when people are home, it is permitted because everyone sees that he is perfuming the house for the people, not for a demon. The Shulchan Aruch only means to forbid it at a time when no one is home.

Does this mean that burning esfand is allowed when people are home? No. It may be that esfand is different from mugmar, because it is known in those countries to be used to repel evil eye or demons. Mugmar refers to other spices like levonah that were never used in any idolatrous ritual.]

Bava Basra

Bava Basra 21a: Denying a rabbi one of his privileges

YCLeave a comment

Bava Basra 21a: If a new children’s rebbe comes to town who can teach better than the current rebbe, we fire the current rebbe and replace him with the new one.

Rema Yoreh Deah 245:22: This is only true of a children’s rebbe, but if someone has a chazaka to be the rav of a town, and a greater rav moves in, we do not replace him.

בבא בתרא כא ע”א: ואמר רבא: האי מקרי ינוקי דגריס, ואיכא אחרינא דגריס טפי מיניה ־ לא מסלקינן ליה, דלמא אתי לאיתרשולי. רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר: כ״ש דגריס טפי, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

יו”ד רמ”ה, כב ברמ”א: מי שהוחזק לרב בעיר אפילו החזיק בעצמו באיזה שררה אין להורידו מגדולתו אע״פ שבא לשם אחר גדול ממנו (ריב״ש סימן רע״א).

In 1966, Harav Moshe Feinstein received a shailah from Yitzchak Pfizer, the president of Young Israel of Oceanside. The custom in that shul was that anyone getting an aliyah on Shabbos or Yom Tov morning would walk down from the bima, go to the rabbi’s seat and get a bracha of yasher koach from the rabbi. But there were a few people who didn’t like this custom and decided to go straight to their seats after their aliyah, because they didn’t approve of the rabbi or didn’t feel he was deserving of such an honor. The shul president asked Reb Moshe what to do about these individuals.

Reb Moshe responded that it is forbidden to discontinue such a custom without permission from the rabbi, and as long as the custom is in effect, no one may violate it. It’s like a monetary obligation that everyone in the kehilah has accepted upon themselves.

As proof, he brings the Yerushalmi at the end of Horayos (19b), cited by the Gra in his comment on Yoreh Deah 245:22 (number 37 in the Gra’s comments). The Yerushalmi says that there were two families, the family of Bar Hoshia and the family of Bar Pazi, who used to go and greet the Nasi every day. The Bar Hoshia family went in first because they were more respectable. Then the Bar Pazi family married into the Nasi’s family, and they felt that from now on, they should go first. They came and they asked Rav Ami what to do. Rav Ami replied based on a pasuk (Shemos 26:30), “And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its law.” Is there then a law for wood? – This means that a board that was placed on the north side should always be placed on the north side, and a board that was placed on the south side should always be placed on the south side. In the same way, the family who was accustomed to be the first to greet the Nasi retains that right as a chazaka.

This relates to the Rema in that same place, who says that when someone has a chazaka to be the rav of a town, the kehilah may not fire him (unless he was hired on contract for a specific amount of time), even if a greater rabbi comes to town. Rav Moshe viewed denial of a privilege to the rav as if it were a partial firing of the rav, taking away something that he has a chazaka to receive. Besides, even a regular local custom should not be violated, and certainly not this one, which involves respect for the rav and, by extension, respect for all talmidei chachomim and Torah learners.

Therefore, Reb Moshe ruled that those individuals who refused to comply with the custom are not allowed to receive an aliyah. He ended with his hopes that when everyone acts according to halacha, there should be peace in Oceanside.

Source: Igros Moshe YD 2:99

Yuma

Yuma 85a: Fighting a war on Shabbos

YCLeave a comment

Yuma 85a: Rabbi Yishmoel, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah were walking on the road, and Levi the Sadar and Rabbi Yishmoel the son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah were following them, and the following question was asked of them: How do we know that danger to life overrides Shabbos? [Each sage went on to offer a drasha, but all agreed on the halacha itself.]

יומא פה ע”א: וכבר היה רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה מהלכין בדרך, ולוי הסדר ורבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מהלכין אחריהן. נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם: מניין לפקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת?

In the First Book of Maccabees 2:31-41, we read:

It was reported to the officers and soldiers of the king [Antiochus] who were in the City of David, in Jerusalem, that those who had flouted the king’s order had gone out to secret refuges in the wilderness. Many hurried out after them, and having caught up with them, camped opposite and prepared to attack them on the Sabbath. The pursuers said to them, “Enough of this! Come out and obey the king’s command, and you will live.” But they replied, “We will not come out, nor will we obey the king’s command to profane the Sabbath.” Then the enemy attacked them at once. But they did not retaliate; they neither threw stones, nor blocked up their secret refuges. They said, “Let us all die in innocence; heaven and earth are our witnesses that you destroy us unjustly.” So the officers and soldiers attacked them on the Sabbath, and they died with their wives, their children and their animals, to the number of a thousand persons. When Matisyahu and his friends heard of it, they mourned deeply for them. They said to one another, “If we all do as our kindred have done, and do not fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our laws, they will soon destroy us from the earth.” So on that day they came to this decision: “Let us fight against anyone who attacks us on the Sabbath, so that we may not all die as our kindred died in their secret refuges.”

The question is: why didn’t those thousand Jews defend themselves? How could it be that these kedoshim, who were so moser nefesh for the Torah, were not aware of the halacha, universally agreed upon in the Gemara, that danger to life overrides Shabbos?

The answer is that this was a time of shmad. The Gemara says in Sanhedrin 74a: Rabbi Yochanan said that this whole rule – that danger to life overrides all mitzvos except for three – was only said when it is not a time of shmad, but at a time of shmad, even a small mitzvah takes precedence over life. This is provided, of course, that the gentile’s intent is to force the Jew to transgress. If the gentile’s intent is for his own convenience (e.g. he orders the Jew to cook a meal for him on Shabbos), then even during a time of shmad the Jew should obey.

The Jews in Matisyahu’s time held that when the Greeks attacked them on Shabbos, their intent was to force the Jews to violate Shabbos. The Greeks figured that they would score a victory either way. If the Jews refused to defend themselves, they would slaughter them and get rid of these stubborn religious people. If the Jews did defend themselves on Shabbos, they would be making them violate Shabbos.

Matisyahu agreed to this argument in principle, but said, “If we don’t fight back, they will soon destroy us from the earth.” In other words, he argued that although in a time of shmad, any mitzvah takes precedence over life, danger to the entire Jewish people is different. This is the same argument that obligated Esther to go to Achashveirosh willingly, committing an aveirah for the sake of saving the Jewish people. (See Noda Biyehuda Yoreh Deah 154)

[This is how it sounds from the words of the Book of Maccabees, but Matisyahu may have also argued that the Greeks attacked on Shabbos solely for their own convenience. They figured that the Jews would not defend themselves, so this would be an easy win for them.]

Avodah Zarah

Avodah Zarah 34a: Is Corelle glass or ceramic?

YCLeave a comment

Avodah Zarah 34a: The Torah testifies that a ceramic vessel absorbs the taste of the food cooked in it, and can never be kashered and cleansed from that taste.

Orach Chaim 451:26: Glass vessels, even if food was kept in them long term, or if they were used with hot food, do not require any kashering, because they do not absorb taste; it is enough to wash them. Rema: But some are strict and say that glass vessels do absorb and cannot be kashered, and this is the custom in Germany and these countries.

ע”ז לד ע”א: התורה העידה על כלי חרס שאינו יוצא מידי דופנו לעולם.

שו”ע או”ח תנ”א, כ”ו: כלי זכוכית אפי׳ מכניסן לקיום ואפילו משתמש בהם בחמין א״צ שום הכשר שאינם בולעים ובשטיפה בעלמא סגי להו: הגה ויש מחמירין ואומרים דכלי זכוכית אפילו הגעלה לא מהני להו וכן המנהג באשכנז ובמדינות אלו (סמ״ק ואגור).

A young man about 26 years old came to Rabbi Yisroel Belsky and asked, “Does Corelle absorb like glass or like ceramic?”

Rav Belsky replied, “Corelle is about 88% glass and about 12% ceramic; the company doesn’t disclose the exact composition. But the Rema says at the end of siman 451 that Ashkenazic custom is to consider glass like ceramic, which absorbs non-kosher taste and cannot be kashered. So no matter what Corelle is, you should be strict.

“But,” Rav Belsky continued, “I gather from your question that you must have looked at the Mishnah Berurah, and you saw that he says that in cases of loss one may rely on the Mechaber who says that glass doesn’t absorb taste at all. And your case is a case of loss.”

“That’s right, that was my shailah,” said the young man.

“Okay, then,” said Rav Belsky, “I’ll answer your shailah, but I have something very important to tell you. First and foremost, I want to give you a bracha that every Corelle dish that you have should be broken and smashed and end up in the garbage can! Not even one should be left over as a zeicher. And you should buy a new set, and that set should also be broken and smashed!”

The young man looked puzzled.

“Listen to me,” said Rav Belsky. “When you say this is a case of loss, you mean that your wife got into a big fight with you, because a Corelle plate somehow became treif in your home, and both of you are very angry. Because if that plate gets thrown out, the set will be incomplete. Is this true?”

“Yes,” the young man admitted.

“You want to have a family with children, who will fill the house with laughter and happiness? So I’m giving you a blessing that you should have children. And children love to break dishes. The Gemara says in Yuma 78b that it is normal for children to break dishes – that is the healthy way for them to grow, and if they don’t, it must be that their parents terrorize them too much. There is too much pressure and strictness in the home. A child growing up in such a house will be a very unhappy child, who will have problems later in life. So you want your children to break the dishes. All your dishes will eventually get broken. Throw away this dish, and when your kids break dishes, give them a kiss and tell them it’s nothing, tell your wife it’s nothing, and tell her that you’ll buy her a new set of Corelle, and another new set after that. Don’t make a problem over a dish and don’t have shailos. You should have so much happiness in your house, the kids should jump all over the place and break the furniture.”

The young man remarked, “I’m walking away from this conversation a wise person. What I’ve learned in the last couple of minutes is more valuable to me than anything I’ve ever learned before.”

Source: Audio shiur on chinuch by Rav Belsky

Yevamos

Yevamos 97b: Surrogacy in Halacha

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 97b: If twin boys were in their mother’s womb and she converted to Judaism, and the twins grew up and married wives, and one died, the other need not do chalitzah or yibum, but he is forbidden  by the Torah to take his brother’s wife.

The Nimukei Yosef (Yevamos 3b in the Rif’s page numbering) implies that they are only forbidden to take each other’s wives in the case of twins, but if a woman converted during pregnancy, had a baby, and then became pregnant again as a Jew and had a second baby, they would be allowed to take each other’s wives.

The Shach (Yoreh Deah 269:6) rules in accordance with the Nimukei Yosef. 

יבמות צז ע”ב: שני אחים תאומים גרים, וכן משוחררים ־ לא חולצין ולא מייבמין, ואין חייבין משום אשת אחֹ. היתה הורתן שלא בקדושה ולידתן בקדושה ־ לא חולצין ולא מייבמין, אבל חייבין משום אשת אחֹ.

נימוקי יוסף ג ע”ב בדפי הרי”ף: אם נשא אשת אחיו או גר או עבד אינו חייב משום אשת אח אפילו היו לו בנים לאחיו ממנה כיון שהיתה הורתן ולידתן שלא בקדושה אבל היכא דהוו תאומים והיתה לידתן בקדושה חייבין משום אחותו ואשת אח ומשום דדמו לאחין מן האם ולא מן האב לכך אין מיבמין.

The Torah tells us, “And the children of Shimon were Yemuel, Yamin, Ohad, Yachin and Tzochar, and Shaul the son of the Canaanite woman.” (Bereishis 46:10) Rashi explains that “the Canaanite woman” refers to Dinah, who was taken captive by the Canaanite prince Sh’chem.

The commentators all ask: How could Shimon marry his full sister Dinah? True, the Torah had not been given yet, but even a non-Jew is forbidden to marry his sister, as long as they share a mother!

Rabbi Avrohom Tzvi Kamai zt”l hy”d, the last rav of Mir, answered as follows. The Torah describes Dinah’s birth: “And after that, she [Leah] gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.” (Bereishis 30:21)

The Gemara comments: After what? Rav said: After Leah judged herself and said: Twelve tribes will be born to Yaakov. Six have already come from me, and four from the maidservants – that makes ten. If this one is a boy, my sister Rochel will not even be equal to the maidservants. Immediately, the fetus became a daughter. (Berachos 60a)

The Targum Yonasan tells the story slightly differently. It’s not that the fetus was transformed from a son into a daughter, but rather Yosef was originally in Leah’s womb, while Dinah was in Rochel’s womb. The babies were miraculously switched, and Leah gave birth to Dinah.

According to this, Shimon’s conception was from Leah, while Dinah’s conception was from Rochel. At  conception, they did not share a mother, only a father, and a non-Jew is allowed to marry his paternal sister. True, at birth they did share a mother. But we see from the Nimukei Yosef and the Shach that birth from the same mother is not enough to make people siblings. They must also have been conceived by the same mother. 

Source: Mishulchan R’ Eliyahu Boruch, Vayigash

[The Nimukei Yosef does not explain why twins should be different. In the case where one fetus underwent geirus inside his mother, and thus is a ger, and the second baby was conceived after his mother’s geirus and is thus not a ger, they are permitted (on a Torah level) to take each other’s wives. If so, twins who underwent geirus in their mother’s womb should be the same. Since they were conceived as non-Jews, they are unrelated to each other.]   

Eiruvin

Eiruvin 55b: Being discreet about the mikvah

YCLeave a comment

Eiruvin 55b: Those who live in huts are as if they live in graves, and regarding their daughters it is written, “Cursed is he who lies with an animal.” Why? Because they notice when their neighbors go to the mikvah.

Hagahos Ashri, quoting Agudah: Based on this, women have the custom to be discreet on the night of their immersion, and are careful not to go in a noticeable manner.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 198:48, Rema: Some have written that a woman must be discreet on the night of her immersion, and this is indeed the custom of women, to conceal the fact that they are going to the mikvah that night, not to go noticeably or in front of others, so that people should not notice. And whoever does not do so – regarding her it says, “Cursed is he who lies with an animal.”

עירובין נה ע”ב אליעזר איש ביריא אומר: יושבי צריפין כיושבי קברים, ועל בנותיהם הוא אומר (דברים כ״ז) ארור שכב עם כל בהמה. מאי טעמא? וכו’ רבי יוחנן אמר: מפני שמרגישין זה לזה בטבילה. וכתב בהגהות אשרי שם ד”ה יושבי כו’. ונ”ל בשביל זה נהגו הנשים להיות צנועות בליל טבילתן שלא לילך במהומה, אגודה.

רמ”א יו”ד קצ”ח סמ”ח יש שכתבו שיש לאשה להיות צנועה בליל טבילתה וכן נהגו הנשים להסתיר ליל טבילתן שלא לילך במהומה או בפני הבריות שלא ירגישו בהן בני אדם ומי שאינה עושה כן נאמר עליה ארור שוכב עם בהמה.

In the town of Szerdahely, Hungary, there was a woman who operated a small store. Whenever she went to the mikvah, she would have to close the store early, and she feared people would notice. So she asked Rabbi Yehuda Aszod (known as the Mahari Aszod), the rav of the town and one of the gedolei hador, what to do. He recommended that she delay her immersion until Friday night.

Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, the Shevet Halevi, quotes this ruling and concurs, but then he comments: “However, when a young couple eats supper at the home of her parents, the wife should not delay going to the mikvah out of fear that the parents might notice. They should just be as quiet as possible about it.”  

The ruling of the Mahari Aszod seems to support this too, because we see that he recommended that the woman delay her immersion until Friday night. Going to the mikvah on a Friday night would be very noticeable to her children, yet he permitted it. However, we don’t know the situation there: perhaps she had no children, or had only small children who would not notice.

We can also bring proof to Rav Wosner from the Gemara itself. It says that those who dwell in huts notice when their neighbors go to the mikvah, because the huts are so close together. If the obligation to be discreet applies to family members too, then even people who live in mansions, with plenty of space between them and their neighbors, might be noticed by their family when they go out at night at an unusual time. Why is living in huts worse? Clearly, family members are different.

As the reason why family members are different, we can speculate:

1) Perhaps it is because Chazal understood that if they imposed such a high level of secrecy on going to the mikvah, some women (those with older children, or those living with parents) would never go. The story of the Mahari Aszod illustrates that secrecy overrides tevilah in its proper time, but it does not override tevilah altogether.

2) It’s also possible that with family members, there is some benefit in them knowing about the mikvah. Parents of the husband or wife, such as in Rav Wosner’s case, are pleased to know that their child has a happy marriage. And children need to know that they live in a solid home where their parents love each other. Of course, this doesn’t mean they should be told about it as a first choice, but in a case where there is a possibility that they may find out, we don’t delay the tevilah. On the other hand, when people outside the home may find out, we do delay it, since there is nothing positive about that.