Author: YC

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

Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia 59a: When not to listen to your wife

YCLeave a comment

Bava Metzia 59a: Rav said: Whoever follows his wife’s advice falls into Gehinom, as we see in the case of Korach. Rav Papa asked Abaye: But people say, “If your wife is short, lean over and whisper to her!” The answer is: listen to her in worldly matters, not in heavenly matters.

בבא מציעא נט ע”א: ואמר רב: כל ההולך בעצת אשתו נופל בגיהנם, שנאמר (מלכים א׳ כ״א) רק לא היה כאחאב וגו׳. ־ אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי: והא אמרי אינשי: איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש להִ ־ לא קשיא, הא ־ במילי דעלמא, והא ־ במילי דביתא. לישנא אחרינא: הא ־ במילי דשמיא, והא ־ במילי דעלמא.

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter’s disciples noticed that he often made decisions in his household without consulting his wife. “How can the rebbe go against an explicit Gemara, which says that in worldly matters one must listen to his wife?” they asked. “Ah,” he replied, “for me, everything is a heavenly matter!”

As an example of a worldly matter which is actually a heavenly matter, a story about Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin comes to mind. One day, his wife bought some heavy items in the marketplace. That evening, Reb Yehoshua Leib looked up from his sefer and noticed the bags, and realized that his wife must have hired a porter to carry it home for her. “How much did you pay the porter?” he asked. She told him, and he said, “For such a heavy load he deserves more!” He took the extra money from his wallet and dispatched one of his children to find the porter and pay him, urging him to find him that same night to fulfill the mitzvah of ביומו תתן שכרו (paying a worker’s wages on the same day) and לא תלין (the worker’s wages may not stay with the employer overnight).

The rebbetzin was surprised and said, “But he accepted the money I gave him, thanked me and did not argue at all. And besides, you are sitting and learning Torah day and night – you don’t do business or hire workers, so how do you know what the appropriate pay is for a job like this?”

The rav smiled and replied, “The Torah already speaks about this. If someone consecrates a donkey or a camel to the Beis Hamikdash, he brings it before the kohein, and the kohein appraises its value (Vayikra 27:12). Hekdesh then sells it for whatever price the kohein chooses. Similarly, if he consecrates his house, the kohein appraises it (posuk 14). Now, this kohein is serving in the Beis Hamikdash and learning Torah. What does he know about the world of commerce? The answer is that when it makes a difference for halachic purposes, Hashem grants the posek heavenly assistance to know what he needs to know, and not make a mistake.”

Source: Mayim Chaim pp. 152-153

Shevuos

Shevuos 35b: A prefix or a suffix?

YCLeave a comment

Shevuos 35b: The Rabbis learned: Any letter attached to a Divine Name, whether as a prefix or a suffix, may be erased. Others say: A suffix may not be erased, for the Name has already sanctified it. Rav Huna said: The halacha follows the Others.

שבועות לה: ת״ר: כל הטפל לשם בין מלפניו ובין מלאחריו ־ ה״ז נמחק וכו’ אחרים אומרים: לאחריו אינו נמחק, שכבר קדשו השם. אמר רב הונא: הלכה כאחרים.

The Torah says, “And you who cling to Hashem your G-d are all alive today” (Devarim 4:4). The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh comments that the Four-Letter Name of Hashem can only have a prefix, never a suffix. Therefore, one might have thought that the Jewish people, although they may cling to Hashem, are not permanently with Him; they can be erased, Heaven forbid. Therefore the Torah says, “You who cling to Hashem your G-d” (א-להיכם) with the suffix attached, to show that we are like the suffix: Hashem has made us holy and we can never be erased.

Thus the Torah’s blessing to the tzaddikim is the exact inverse of the curse “may his name be erased.” The tzaddikim cling to Hashem in this world and in Olam Haba and their names are never erased.