Author: YC

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

Nedarim

Nedarim 27a: A vow taken under duress

YCLeave a comment

Nedarim 27a: If one was under duress in his failure to fulfill a vow, it is permitted. For example, if Reuven made Shimon swear that he would eat at his house, and then Shimon got sick, or his son got sick, or a river blocked his path – this is called duress.

Yoreh Deah 232:12, Rema: Some say that the exemption of duress applies only when he had to swear to avoid something bad happening to him, not if he merely swore to gain something.

נדרים כ ע”ב: ארבעה נדרים התירו חכמים: נדרי זרוזין, ונדרי הבאי, ונדרי שגגות, ונדרי אונסין. ושם כז ע”א: נדרי אונסין: הדירו חבירו שיאכל אצלו, וחלה הוא או שחלה בנו, או שעכבו נהר ־ הרי אלו נדרי אונסין.

יו”ד רל”ב,יב: נדרי אונסין כיצד, הדירו חבירו שיאכל אצלו וחלה או שחלה בנו או שעכבו נהר הרי אלו נדרי אונסין… רמ”א: ויש אומרים דלא מקרי אונס ולא מקרי אונס בשבועה אלא א״כ היה מגיע לו איזה רעה אם לא היה נשבע אבל אם לא היה מגיע לו טובה ונשבע כדי שיהיה לו טובה מזה אין מקרי אנוס בשבועה (מהרי״ק שורש קס״ז ופסקי מהרא״י סי׳ ע״ג).

Born in 1930 in Kaschau, Hungary, Rabbi Avraham Weinfeld was 14 years old when the Germans deported his entire town to Auschwitz. His parents, siblings and extended family were all killed immediately. Soon he was transferred to a labor camp and forced to work all winter in sub-freezing temperatures, wearing nothing but a thin prison shirt. For a time, he had typhus. He later wrote in the hakdama to his sefer Even Yechezkel that he took a vow while in the camp that if he survived, he would dedicate his entire life to learning and teaching Torah. This was in spite of the fact that he came from a family that was not particularly scholarly. His father and grandfather had owned a factory and were well-to-do people. The idea of dedicating his life to Torah was his own.

After the war, he came to America and learned under R’ Moshe Feinstein at MTJ. When he became engaged, he and his kallah went visit to the Satmar Rebbe, who asked him what he would be doing for a living. Reb Avraham responded that he was going to learn. “What are you going to live on?” asked the Rebbe. “I made a neder in the concentration camps that if I would survive, I would dedicate my life to learning Torah,” said Reb Avraham. The Rebbe made a dismissive gesture and said, “That’s nidrei onsin. You don’t have to keep it.” But Reb Avraham  did not give up.

He bought a newspaper, looked at the classifieds and chose an apartment in Harlem (unaware that, by that time, Harlem was no longer a thriving Jewish neighborhood). The first day of Sheva Brachos, he went to daven Mincha and Maariv in a local shul. After Mincha, a few old men approached him and asked him if he could give a shiur on Mishnayos. He agreed and gave the shiur. After Maariv, the shul members asked him if he would become their Rav. For ten dollars a month, he became the Rav of that shul. Eventually, another shul hired him, paying him twelve dollars a month; he alternated between the shuls and that was how he made a living.

In that first shul, the women’s balcony had no mechitzah, but no women really came to shul so there wasn’t much of an issue. As the high holidays approached and women were to come, he told the people in the shul that they needed a mechitzah. “This shul is a hundred years old,” the members responded, “and this is the way we’ve been davening for all these years. We’re not interested in a nineteen year old boy telling us how to daven.” “Well,” he said, “if there’s no mechitzah, I can’t daven here.” So they came up with a solution: they built a mechitzah just around Reb Avraham’s seat.

On Yom Kippur night, to his surprise, he saw everyone in the shul wearing leather shoes. During his drashah before Kol Nidrei, he spoke about the prohibition to wear shoes. They all listened to him and removed their shoes, except for the president of the shul, who refused. In the morning, Reb Avraham came back to shul and found that his mechitzah was gone. The president had taken it down. “The way you are living is not how people live today,” said the president. “No,” said Reb Avraham. “If a person lives according to the Torah, he lives, and if he not, it’s not a life.” He left the shul and walked, on Yom Kippur morning, from Harlem to Williamsburg to daven by the Klausenberger Rebbe.

When he came back home Motzaei Yom Kippur, he found all the people of the shul gathered in the hallway of his apartment. They told him that that morning, the president of the shul had dropped dead in the middle of davening. Terrified, they asked him for mechilah. Reb Avraham told them that it had nothing to do with him. He didn’t stay much longer in that position.

Source: https://ravweinfeld.com/posts/bo/#yartzeit-of-reb-avraham-weinfeld

[Based on the Mechaber and Rema, there are two conditions needed to be considered “nidrei onsin”: the vow was made due to fear of something bad happening, and the fulfillment of the vow became too difficult because of a new situation that arose, e.g. he got sick. In our case, the vow was made because the young Avraham Weinfeld was afraid of dying in the Holocaust, and he wanted Hashem’s protection, so the first condition is satisfied. But what was the new situation that arose? He knew all along that it would be difficult to sit and learn his whole life (although perhaps we could say that he didn’t know how exactly difficult it would be).

Furthermore, it’s not even clear that this is called “a vow taken to avoid something bad.” Perhaps it should be viewed the opposite way: most Jews did not survive the camps. In all probability, he would die too. He was asking Hashem for special protection, and in return he promised to sit and learn. Maybe this is similar to the Rema’s case of swearing in order to gain something.

Indeed, the Ramban on Vayikra 22:18 says:

כי הנדר הוא הבא על דבר שיפלא ממנו, שידור לה׳ בצר לו אם תעשה עמי להפליא להצילני מן הצרה הזאת אביא עולה או שלמים, כענין וידר יעקב נדר לאמר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי (בראשית כח כ) , וידר ישראל נדר לה׳ ויאמר אם נתון תתן (במדבר כא ב) , וידרו נדרים (יונה א טז(.

The word “yafli” is used in connection with a neder because a person usually makes a neder in order to merit help from Hashem in something that is too hard for him (“pele” means hidden, beyond, wondrous). He vows to Hashem in his time of trouble, “If you do wonders for me and save me from this danger, I will bring a korban olah or shlamim.” For example, “Yaakov vowed a neder saying, if G-d will be with me…” “Israel vowed and neder to Hashem and said, if You deliver this people into my hands…” And regarding the sailors on the ship with Yonah, it says, “They made vows.”

Is it conceivable if Yaakov Avinu, the Bnei Yisroel or the sailors had encountered some inconvenience, they would not have had to keep their vows?

On the issue of the mechitzah, it’s interesting that according to Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 1:39), the high balcony would have been sufficient, as it prevents mingling; preventing visibility is not required. This teshuva was written in 1946, before our story. Perhaps the case was that “balcony” was almost level with the main shul. Alternatively, although Reb Avraham Weinfeld had learned under Reb Moshe, he was more stringent regarding the requirement of mechitzah.

If Reb Avraham held that the mechitzah needed to block visibility, then why would a mechitzah just around his seat help? The rav may as well have put on a blindfold; the shul would still not be following the halachos of a shul because they didn’t have a kosher mechitzah, and one may not daven in such a shul. If a blindfold doesn’t help, why does a mechitzah around his seat help? The answer is that the mechitzah rendered his seat a different domain, not part of the shul at all. As to the rest of the shul, he was willing to let them follow Reb Moshe’s shitah.]

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 6b: Paskening on a theoretical question

YCLeave a comment

Sanhedrin 6b: The dayanim must know whom they are judging, before whom they are judging, and who will one day punish them, as it is written, “G-d stands in the congregation of G-d.” And so regarding Yehoshafat it is written, “And he said to the judges, see what you are doing! For you are not judging for man, but for Hashem” – and lest the dayan say, what do I need this pain? Therefore the posuk continues – “He is with you on the matter of judgment” – the dayan can only judge based on what his eyes see.

The Ramban on Shemos 21:6 comments on the use of the name “Elokim” in reference to beis din, “This teaches that Hashem is with the judges in their ruling – He acquits and convicts. And so Moshe said, “For justice belongs to G-d.” And so Yehoshafat said, “For you are not judging for man, but for Hashem, and He is with you on the matter of judgment.” And so the posuk says, “G-d stands in the assembly of G-d, in the midst of G-d He judges,” which means, “In the midst of the assembly of G-d He judges,” for G-d is the judge. And so it says, “The two men who have the dispute shall stand before Hashem.”

סנהדרין ו ע”ב: ויהו הדיינין יודעין את מי הן דנין, ולפני מי הן דנין, ומי עתיד ליפרע מהן, שנאמר (תהלים פ״ב) אלהים נצב בעדת אל. וכן ביהושפט הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב׳ י״ט) ויאמר אל השפטים ראו מה אתם עשים כי לא לאדם תשפטו כי לה׳, שמא יאמר הדיין מה לי בצער הזה ־ תלמוד לומר עמכם בדבר משפט ־ אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות.

רמב”ן שמות כא,ו: ולדעתי יאמר הכתוב והגישו אדניו אל האלהים, עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם (להלן כב ח) , לרמוז כי האלהים יהיה עמהם בדבר המשפט, הוא יצדיק והוא ירשיע. וזהו שאמר (שם) אשר ירשיעון אלהים, וכך אמר משה כי המשפט לאלהים הוא (דברים א יז) . וכך אמר יהושפט כי לא לאדם תשפטו כי לה׳ ועמכם בדבר משפט (דהי״ב יט ו) . וכן אמר הכתוב אלהים נצב בעדת אל בקרב אלהים ישפוט (תהלים פב א) , כלומר בקרב עדת אלהים ישפוט, כי האלהים הוא השופט. וכן אמר ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה׳ (דברים יט יז).

The town of Zelichov was looking for a new rav, who, they hoped, would be a charismatic personality capable of leading the battle against the new sect of Chassidism that had recently arisen. The fame of Rabbi Levi Yitzchok (later known as the Berditchever) as a great Torah scholar had spread throughout the world, but it was not yet public knowledge that he had joined the Chassidim. And the people of Zelichov were certain that someone so great in Torah could not also be a Chassid. So he was appointed as their rav.

And then the inevitable happened – it was discovered that he belonged to the Chassidic movement. There ensued a dispute in the town over what to do next. Most of the townspeople, having witnessed Rabbi Levi Yitzchok serving his flock with care and concern, wanted him to stay. On the other hand, the Torah scholars of the city were upset that the new rav had not spent much time learning with them and saying shiurim, as he was too busy with the poor and simple folk. Who would teach them Torah?

When these talmidei chachomim realized that they could not convince the people to fire Rabbi Levi Yitzchok, they decided to test him on halacha, to demonstrate for all that he was not so learned. They came up with a complicated question in Yoreh Deah, and they convinced the town butcher to present the shailah to the rav, as if this situation had actually come up in his shop. And lo and behold, Rabbi Levi Yitzchok ruled incorrectly!  Finally, his opponents had irrefutable proof that he was not fit for the rabbinate.

When they confronted Rabbi Levi Yitzchok with his mistake, he responded, “Had this been an actual shailah that arose, Hashem would have granted me siyata dishmaya to give the correct psak. But it was a made-up, theoretical question, and Levi Yitzchok does not pasken on made-up questions. And not only Levi Yitzchok – every dayan has the assistance of Hashem only on actual questions, but when it comes to learning in general, when it’s not relevant to the real world, a dayan is like any other talmid chacham. The mistaken svara of a talmid chacham is also Torah, but it’s not the halacha l’maaseh. That’s why we often find in the Gemara the words “there was a story” (הוה עובדא) or “there was once a woman who came before so-and-so (ההיא איתתא דאתת לקמיה) – to show that these were real live questions and therefore the psak given was the halacha l’maaseh.”

Rabbi Levi Yitzchok continued to serve as rav of Zelichov for 10 years.  

Souce: Mayim Chaim, p.174 note 29, quoting Chassidim V’anshei Maaseh, by Eliyahu Kitov

[The Ramban’s way of understanding the Gemara in Sanhedrin – that the dayanim have siyata dishmaya – is the inverse of the way Rashi understands it. According to Rashi, the dayanim need not have siyata dishmaya to “get it right” because there is no “right.” The Torah is not in Heaven; the dayanim must do their best, and then whatever they rule is by definition correct. In Rashi’s words:

עמכם בדבר משפט לפי מה שעם לבבכם, שלבבכם נוטה בדבר, כלומר בטענותיהם ־ עמכם במשפט לפי אותן דברים תשפוטו ולא תיענשו. דאין לו לדיין ־ לירא ולמנוע עצמו מן הדין. אלא לפי מה שעיניו רואות ־ לידון, ויתכוין להוציאו לצדקו ולאמיתו, ושוב לא יענש.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, in the introduction to the first volume of Igros Moshe, quotes this Gemara with Rashi as the basis for his point that a rav need not be afraid to pasken, because whatever he paskens will be considered correct in Heaven.

It would seem that Rashi and the Ramban, although they disagree on the meaning of this Gemara, are each correct in different cases. In a case where the halacha has been decided already by earlier poskim, and has been written in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries, the rav merely has to know it. Since it’s difficult to remember everything, he is granted siyata dishmaya to get it right, as the Ramban says. This was the case in our story: the scholars caught Rabbi Levi Yitzchok ruling against an explicit halacha.

But in a new case that is not addressed explicitly in Shulchan Aruch, and has to be deduced by comparisons and logic, there is no one right answer. In such cases, whatever the rav rules is defined as halacha, as Rashi says.]

Taharos

Mikvaos 2:4: Wiping the water off a mikveh basin

YCLeave a comment

Mikvaos 2:4: Rabbi Eliezer says: A reviis of mayim sh’uvim that enters the basin, before the rainwater is added, invalidates the mikveh, but if the mikveh is partially filled with rainwater, then only 3 lugin invalidate it. And the Sages say: whether at the beginning (before the rainwater) or at the end (after the mikveh is partially filled), the amount is 3 lugin. 

מקואות פ”ב מ”ד: רבי אליעזר אומר רביעית מים שאובין בתחלה פוסלין את המקוה. ושלשה לוגין על פני המים. וחכמים אומרים. בין בתחלה בין בסוף. שעורו שלשה לוגין.

Rabbi Yonasan Steif used to travel far and wide to supervise the building of mikvaos. Even at the end of his life, when he was 80 years old, with whatever strength he had left, he would climb down into the basin of each mikvah holding a rag in his hand, and he would go over all four walls and the floor of the basin to remove every last drop of water, as the Shulchan Aruch dictates. He didn’t send anyone else to do this job for him.

Source: Otzros Mahari Steif, p. 341

[This is talking about a mikvah created using the zeriah method, where the water needed changing. The immersion basin is emptied and refilled with kosher water from the bor zeriah. The old water is typically sucked out of the basin with a pump. Often a little water remains in the pump, thus becoming mayim sh’uvim, and drips back into the mikveh. If there are 3 lugin of this old water, the new mikveh will never be kosher.

Even if one would argue that there is never as much as 3 lugin dripping out of the pump, there is reason to follow the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that even one reviis of mayim sh’uvim invalidates a mikveh, if it precedes all the kosher water. Although the halacha does not usually follow Rabbi Eliezer, in this case the Mishnah Acharona suggested that the underlying dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages is over whether an entire mikveh of mayim sh’uvim is invalid Mid’oraisa. Rabbi Eliezer holds it is invalid; therefore, since a reviis of rainwater is a kosher mikveh Mid’oraisa and can be used to tovel a pin, as soon as a reviis of mayim sh’uvim is in the basin, the mikveh is invalid forever, no matter how much rainwater comes in afterwards. The Sages hold that an entire mikveh of mayim sh’uvim is invalid only Mid’rabanan, and therefore the problem doesn’t apply to a reviis, since a reviis is never a kosher mikveh Mid’rabanan. Since the Rema (201:3) rules that an entire mikveh of mayim sh’uvim is invalid Mid’oraisa, the Chelkas Yaakov (3:54) argues that we should follow Rabbi Eliezer.

It’s likely that all the scattered droplets of water around the mikveh add up to a reviis; therefore it’s necessary to wipe down the basin thoroughly before refilling it from the bor zeriah.]

Shabbos

Asking your dog to turn on the light

YCLeave a comment

Shabbos 153b: If one is stuck on the road with his wallet, and has no non-Jew with him, he should place the wallet on the donkey. But then he is working the animal, and the Torah says, “You shall not do any work, you… and your animal!” Rav Adda bar Ahava said: He should place the wallet on the donkey while it is already walking.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 266:2: Some say that he should not urge on the animal by shouting at it as long as the wallet is on its back.

שבת קנג ע”ב: אין עמו נכרי ־ מניחו על החמור. והלא מחמר, ורחמנא אמר (שמות כ) לא תעשה כל מלאכהִ ־ אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: מניחו עליה כשהיא מהלכת.

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים רס”ו ס”ב: יש אומרים שצריך ליזהר מלהנהיגה בקול רם כל זמן שהכיס עליה:

Someone asked Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul if it’s allowed to tell your dog to turn on the light on Shabbos. Based on an inference from a Gemara (Shabbos 19a), he concludes that it’s forbidden. However, he says there is a difference between telling a gentile and telling a dog. In the case of the gentile, there are two reasons, listed by the Shulchan Aruch Harav 243:1:

1) He is considered the shliach – agent of the Jew.

2) It is classified as weekday speech.

Therefore, on Erev Shabbos, although reason 2 does not apply because it’s not Shabbos, still reason 1 applies, and that is why one may not instruct a gentile on Friday to do work on Shabbos (e.g. delivering an overnight letter). But in the case of a dog, the animal cannot be your shliach. The only reason is that it’s weekday speech. Therefore, you may train your dog on a weekday to do melacha, such as turning on the lights for you whenever you enter a room.

Source: Ohr Letzion v. 1 Siman 23

[Why did Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul have to resort to forbidding it because of “amirah” – similar to amirah l’akum? Why didn’t he forbid it because of the Torah prohibition of “mechamer” (doing work with your animal, which is forbidden even if you don’t lead it physically, only with your voice – Orach Chaim 266:2), or “shevisas behemto” (which is forbidden even if a gentile borrows your animal and works with it)?

Although this is not written in Rav Ben Zion’s teshuva, I heard (from Rabbi Moshe Zoberman) that he said that these two prohibitions apply only when you force the animal to work, such as by yelling at it angrily (see the Mechaber’s language “b’kol ram” and the Mishnah Berurah 266:1 “yigor”). But a trained dog can respond even if the owner asks it nicely, out of loyalty to its owner.]

Niddah

Niddah 67a: Using the toilet before tevilah

YC1 Comment

Niddah 67a: Rabbi Yochanan said: If a woman opens her eyes too wide, or shuts them too tightly, her tevilah is not effective.

Rema Yoreh Deah 198:43: Some say that a woman must go to the bathroom before immersion in the mikvah, if she needs to, because if she holds herself back, her insides would not be accessible to the water.

נדה סז ע”א: א״ר יוחנן: פתחה עיניה ביותר, או עצמה עיניה ביותר ־ לא עלתה לה טבילה.

שולחן ערוך יו”ד קצ”ח מ”ג רמ”א: יש אומרים שהאשה צריכה להטיל מים קודם טבילה אם היא צריכה לכך גם צריכה לבדוק עצמה בגדולים ובקטנים שלא תהא צריכה לעצור עצמה ולא יהיו ראויים לביאת מים.

On one of the Satmar Rebbe’s trips to Eretz Yisroel, he passed through Switzerland, and Rav Mordechai Yaakov Breisch zt”l, rav of Zurich and author of Chelkas Yaakov, accompanied him on the train. In the course of the conversation, the Rebbe asked him, “What have you accomplished in your city?”

“I had toilets installed in each room of the women’s mikvah,” replied Rav Breisch.

“And why was that so important?” asked the Rebbe.

“Because if a woman feels the need to use the bathroom, but holds herself back during her tevilah in the mikvah, according to the Rema (Yoreh Deah 198:43) it is a chatzitzah. But if there is a toilet in every room, she can go whenever she wants, so she will be less likely to hold herself back.”

The Rebbe thought deeply for ten minutes, He was clearly very impressed, and his face was aflame. “Ah!” he exclaimed. “Every little piece of gashmius that you put into a mikvah is completely ruchnius!”

Source: Rabbi Yissachar Ber Teitelbaum, supervisor of the mikvah in the Zupnik Building in Williamsburg, who heard it from Rav Breisch’s grandson