Shabbos

Shabbos 65a: The Hot Springs Mikveh

Shabbos 65a: Shmuel’s father made mikvaos for his daughters in the springtime, but in the fall they immersed in the Euphrates River with mats under them to prevent the mud from sticking to their feet. Why did he not let them use the Euphrates in the springtime as well? Because he held that the springtime swelling of the Euphrates is due to rainfall in the west, and he was afraid that the majority of the river’s water might be rainwater, which cannot be used as a mikveh while it is flowing.

שבת סה ע”א: אבוה דשמואל… עביד להו מקואות ביומי ניסן, ומפצי ביומי תשרי… מסייע ליה לרב, דאמר רב: מטרא במערבא ־ סהדא רבה פרת. ־ סבר: שלא ירבו הנוטפין על הזוחלין.

Over the hot springs in a certain city in England (possibly Bath), a famous spa was built in which the boiling hot groundwater flowed into a pool, where tap water was mixed in to cool it down to bathing temperature. There was always a large amount of hot spring water present – more than 80 se’ah. The spring water continued to flow out of the pool, replenished by the spring, and the tap water likewise flowed out, replaced by new tap water. The question, presented to Dayan Aryeh Leib Grossnass of the London Beis Din, was whether the pool could be used as a women’s mikveh.

Seemingly, this would be the same problem Shmuel’s father had with the Euphrates in the spring. Just as in that case, despite the fact that the river contained a tremendous amount of groundwater, it was still invalid as a mikveh while flowing due to the presence of a majority of rainwater, here too a majority of the spa’s water was tap water.

However, Dayan Grossnass found that this depends on a dispute between the Taz and the Shach on Yoreh Deah 201:2. The Mechaber brings the halacha of Shmuel’s father, and the Taz (3) asks: Why is the problem of flowing water (zochalin) worse than the problem of drawn water (mayim sh’uvim – water that has been contained in a vessel, such as tap water)? In the case of drawn water, we know that once you have a kosher mikveh of 40 s’ah, you can add even 1000 s’ah of drawn water and it will still remain kosher. But here, though a spring can be used as a mikveh even when flowing, rainwater cannot, and once the rainwater becomes the majority of the mikveh, it cannot be flowing!

The Taz answers that actually, a spring can still act as a mikveh while flowing even if a majority of rainwater is added, but only in a place where the spring water itself would have reached. Shmuel’s father feared that the amount of spring water in the Euphrates was so little that, if not for the rainwater, mixed into it, it would have dried up before reaching Babylonia, so the rainwater becomes dominant. According to the Taz, in the English spa there was plenty of hot spring water, so the mikveh would be kosher.

However, the Shach (32) disagrees and says that the rule of Shmuel’s father applies in all parts of the river, even where the spring would have reached alone. Dayan Grossnass followed the Shach and therefore did not permit women to use this spa as a mikveh.

Then he sent the question and his teshuva to the Chazon Ish, who replied that it was permitted for two reasons: 1) When the spring water is there first, you are allowed to add drawn water and it can still be flowing. 2) Flowing is only a problem if the water is visibly moving. But here it was not visibly moving, although it was possible to detect the outflow by measurement. Therefore, said the Chazon Ish, the spa could be used if there was no other mikveh available in that city.

Source: Shailos Uteshuvos Lev Aryeh 37

Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia 85a: A dealer is a shomer sachar

Bava Metzia 85a: If someone takes items from the manufacturer to send to his fiancee’s house, and said to him, “If they accept the presents, I will pay, but if not, I will pay you for my pride in offering such expensive presents,” and the items got lost in an unavoidable accident (ones) on the way there, he is responsible, but on the way back, he is exempt, because he is a shomer sachar.

Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 186:2: If he took the items to sell, and said to the manufacturer, if I sell it at a certain place or before a certain time I will pay you such and such a price, and if I don’t sell them, I will return them to you, and they got lost in an unavoidable accident (ones), whether on the way there or back, he is responsible. Some say this is only if he is trying to sell them at above market value, but if not, he is exempt from accidents, and he is only responsible if it is stolen or lost, like a salesman.

בבא מציעא פה ע”א: הלוקח כלים מבית האומן לשגרן לבית חמיו, ואמר לו: אם מקבלין אותן ממני ־ אני נותן לך דמיהן, ואם לאו ־ אני נותן לך לפי טובת הנאה שבהן. ונאנסו בהליכה ־ חייב, בחזירה ־ פטור, מפני שהוא כנושא שכר.

שולחן ערוך חושן משפט קפ”ו ס”ב: נטלם על מנת למכרם, וא״ל אם ימכרו במקום פלוני או עד זמן פלוני אתן לך דמים כך וכך, ואם לא ימכרו אחזירם לך ונאנסו, בין בהליכה בין בחזרה חייב לשלם, ויש אומרים דהני מילי בדבר שיש לו קונים הרבה, ויכול למכרו מיד בדמים שקצב אלא שמחזיר למכרו ביותר כדי שישתכר בו, דאם לא כן פטור מאונסים, ואינו חייב אלא בגניבה ואבידה כדין סרסור.

A diamond supplier and a diamond dealer came before Rav Chaim Kreiswirth. The supplier presented a signed receipt in which the dealer confirmed that he had received a package of diamonds on consignment, and claimed that the dealer had never returned or paid for them. The dealer replied, “Yes, I had the package, but it was stolen from my store.” Rav Kreiswirth paskened that the dealer had the status of a shomer sachar, and therefore had to pay for the stolen diamonds.

The dealer left the Din Torah with a heavy heart. He wasn’t a wealthy man – where would he get such an enormous sum? He would likely have to sell his home and all his possessions. He came back to the rav, crying over his lot. “What do I do now? My life is ruined. A crook took advantage of my trust and grabbed the package when my back was turned for a moment.” Rav Kreiswirth sensed that he was telling the truth, and said, “Don’t worry. You still have thirty days to pay, and I promise to do whatever I can to find a solution for you.”

A few days later came Shabbos Shuvah, and Rav Kreiswirth used the opportunity of his drasha to speak about how careful one must be with other people’s possessions. Characteristically, he was able to cite copious Maamarei Chazal condemning those who steal or damage property. “On sins between one man and another, Yom Kippur does not atone unless he appeases him. And in Ne’ilah we say למען נחדל מעושק ידינו ונשוב אליך לעשות חקי רצונך בלבב שלם – You gave us this Yom Kippur so that we can cease from the violence of our hands and return to You, to fulfill the laws of Your will wholeheartedly.

“And Rabbi Yochanan said: See how terrible robbery is, because the generation of the Mabul committed all sorts of sins, yet they were punished only when they committed robbery.” He continued on this subject for a full hour.

On Motzaei Yom Kippur, Rav Kreiswirth found in his mailbox an envelope containing the missing package of diamonds.

Source: Mayim Chaim, p. 166

Nedarim

Nedarim 55b: The meaning of language in a vow

Nedarim 55b: Rabbi Yehuda says, everything depends on the context in which a person made a vow. For example, if he was carrying a load of wool or linen and as a result, he was sweating and smelling bad, and he said, “I vow that no wool or linen will come upon me,” he is allowed to cover himself with a wool blanket but forbidden to carry wool on his back.   

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 218:1: When someone takes a vow or an oath, we analyze the reason why he took it, we infer what his intention was, and we go by context, not by the actual meaning of his words. For example, if he was carrying a load of wool or linen…

נדרים נה ע”ב: ר׳ יהודה אומר: הכל לפי הנודר, טען והזיע והיה ריחו קשה, אמר קונם צמר ופשתים עולה עלי ־ מותר להתכסות ואסור להפשיל לאחוריו.

שו”ע יו”ד רי”ח ס”א: כל הנודר או הנשבע רואין דברים שבגללן נשבע או נדר ולומדים מהם לאיזה נתכוין והולכין אחר הענין ולא אחר משמעות הדיבור כיצד היה טעון משא של צמר או פשתים והזיע והיה ריחו קשה ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר או פשתים לעולם הרי זה מותר ללבוש בגדי צמר או פשתים ולהתכסות ואינו אסור אלא להפשילן לאחוריו היה לבוש בגדי צמר ונצטער בלבישתו ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר לעולם אסו׳ ללבוש ומות׳ לטעון עליו ומותר להתכסות בגיזי צמר שלא נתכוין זה אלא לבגד צמר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

A shaila about an incident that began 12 years ago was recently asked to HaGaon HaRav Yitzchak Zilberstein, who printed the story and shaila in a booklet published by Kollel Beis Dovid in Holon.

The protagonist of the story wrote: “About 12 years ago, when I was 21 and I was having trouble finding a shidduch, my friend suggested that I request the bracha of a Gadol B’Yisrael whose brachos are known to be fulfilled. (The identity of this gadol has not been released.) I stood in a long line and when it was finally my turn, I asked to find my zivug quickly. The tzaddik gave me a bracha and said: ‘Your zivug is very close.’ My friend took photos and a video of the encounter.

“When I heard the unequivocal bracha from the tzaddik’s mouth, I was filled with joy, and I said that if the words of the tzadik come true, I’ll donate NIS 10,000 to a certain tzedaka.

“But months passed, and then a year, and then two years, and my zivug wasn’t even in sight. During that time, I grumbled to my friend – ‘what about the bracha of the tzaddik who said ‘your zivug is very close?”

“Many years after the bracha, at the age of 32, an 18-year-old girl from a good family was suggested to me. Baruch Hashem, despite my age, her parents agreed to the shidduch and after several dates, we got engaged. It was 11 years after the tzaddik’s bracha, a period that according to all opinions isn’t considered a ‘zivug b’karov.’

“The friend who convinced me to seek the tzaddik’s bracha is a relative of the kallah. One day, the subject of the bracha came up and the fact that I harbored a bit of grievance in my heart that the tzaddik said my zivug was close but it didn’t turn out to be. Of course, as it turned out, I couldn’t have gotten engaged earlier because the zivug that was set from Shamayim when the tzaddik gave me a bracha – was only seven years old at the time.

“The kallah, whose family is also close to the tzaddik, said that she must see the photos. My friend had saved the photos and video on his computer and my kallah and I sat down to watch the video. We watched as I stood in line and waited and I spoke with the tzaddik and he said: ‘Your zivug is very close.’

“Suddenly, my kallah jumped up from her chair and screamed: ‘This is unbelievable! I can’t believe this.’

“‘What happened?’ we said, and she replied: ‘Look at the video. The person standing behind you in line for a bracha is my father and the young girl who’s holding his hand is me…I was seven years old and I came with my father to get a bracha from the tzaddik!’

“Suddenly, retroactively, after 11 years of waiting and uncertainty, the tzaddik’s bracha that ‘your zivug is very close’ was proven to be true – close in a physical sense rather than in a timely sense.

“After we recovered from our shock and surprise, my friend told me: ‘One minute, didn’t you promise that if the tzaddik’s words were fulfilled, you would donate a large amount of money to tzedaka?’

“I replied: ‘Correct, I remember it like yesterday. But what does that have to do with anything? You know that I only found my zivug after 11 years.’

“But my friend claimed that I made a promise that if the tzaddik’s words came true that ‘your zivug is very close,’ I’ll donate a certain amount of money to tzedaka. And now it turns out that the tzaddik’s words came true – that my zivug was very close from a physical standpoint.

“However, I think that surely my intention was not that the tzaddik’s words would be fulfilled in this manner – but that it would come ‘soon’ -in a timely fashion.”

HaRav Zilberstein responded: “Surely Shamayim put the true words in the tzaddik’s mouth and if he would have said that the zivug was close in time, it wouldn’t have been good for the bochur, because it was decreed for him 40 days before his creation that there would be a difference of 14 years between him and his partner.”

“The wording of the neder was that if the words of the tzaddik came true, and it did turn out that the tzaddik’s words came true. But nevertheless, it seems that he is not obligated to pay his neder because nedarim aren’t based on the truth or the wording but on the intention of the one who made the vow. And like it’s ruled in the Shulchan Aruch that anyone who takes a vow – we see why he made the neder and then we learn what he intended. And we go after what he intended, and not the meaning of the words. And since here his intention was to give the tzedaka only if his zivug would be close in time – and not physically close to him – and although the shidduch occurred at the moment it was supposed to because it wasn’t possible beforehand because his kallah was not yet 18 – but nevertheless, since he didn’t make a neder on this [the physical closeness] and it wasn’t the intention of his neder, he is exempt from paying what he promised.”

Source: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/2178227/a-tzaddiks-bracha-after-11-yrs-he-realized-his-kallah-was-standing-next-to-him.html

Berachos

Berachos 54a: Rabbis in Politics

Berachos 54a: All blessings in the Beis Hamikdash used to end with the words “Ad Haolam” (for example, Boruch Atah Hashem Elokei Yisroel ad haolam, boruch chonen hadaas). After the Saduccees denied Judaism and claimed that there was only one world, Chazal enacted to say, “Min haolam v’ad haolam” (from this world to the next world).

ברכות נד ע”א: כל חותמי ברכות שבמקדש היו אומרים: עד העולם. משקלקלו הצדוקים ואמרו אין עולם אלא אחד ־ התקינו שיהו אומרים: מן העולם ועד העולם.

Rabbi Pinchus Hirshprung told the following story about his rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Meir Shapiro. Reb Meir served as Agudath Israel’s representative in the Polish parliament. A non-religious Jew once taunted him, “What is a rav and rosh yeshiva like you doing in politics? Go back to your beis medrash!”

Reb Meir replied: The Mishnah says that in the Beis Hamikdash, they used to say only “ad haolam,” but when the heretics denied Olam Haba and claimed that the present physical world was the only world, Chazal changed the words of the blessing to say, “From this world to the next world.” Today, we can explain it the opposite way. Originally, rabbis used to spend all their time on matters of Torah, matters related to Olam Haba. But when the heretics came and got involved in politics, it became necessary to make a rabbi’s job “from this world to the next world.” Rabbis had to go into politics too in order to counter the influence of the heretics.

Rabbi Chaim Kreiswirth gave a similar explanation of the story in the Gemara about Rav Sheishes and the heretic waiting for the king to pass (Berachos 58a). The heretic asked why a “broken vessel” like Rav Sheishes needed to come out and greet the king, but Rav Sheishes proved more astute in predicting when the king would come. Rav Sheishes explained how he knew: “Kingship on earth is like kingship in heaven.” Rashi learns that the heretic doubted Rav Sheishes because he was blind. But Rav Kreiswirth explained that the debate was about whether a talmid chacham’s views in politics carry any weight. The heretic said, “You just sit and learn Torah; what do you know about kings?” Rav Sheishes replied, “Kingship on earth is like kingship in heaven, and therefore only we who learn Torah understand what government is about.”   

Source: Mayim Chaim p. 150-152 and note 48

Shabbos

Shabbos 139b: Waiting to bury someone on Yom Tov Sheini

Shabbos 139b: If someone died on the first day of Yom Tov – only non-Jews may bury him. On the second day of Yom Tov – Jews may bury him.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 526:2: If someone died on the first day of Yom Tov, it is forbidden to hold the body overnight until Yom Tov Sheini so that Jews may bury him.

שבת קלט ע”ב: מת ביום טוב ראשון ־ יתעסקו בו עממין, ביום טוב שני ־ יתעסקו בו ישראל.

או”ח תקכ”ו ס”ב: מת ביו״ט ראשון אסור להלינו עד יו״ט שני כדי שיתעסקו בו ישראל.

The Shivchei Habesht tells us that the Baal Shem Tov passed away on the first day of Shavuos. On the first night of Shavuos the talmidim gathered and stayed up all night, and he spoke Divrei Torah before them. In the morning he asked them to gather in his house, and he requested that Reb Leib Kessler and someone else take care of his burial. He taught them how to tell that his soul was departing from each of his limbs in turn.

All the people of the town of Medzibuzh came to say good Yom Tov to him, and he spoke Divrei Torah to them.  And then, at the meal, he said to his talmidim, “Until now, I have done chesed with you; now you do chesed with me.” He stood up and went to the outhouse. His attendant wanted to accompany him, but he said, “Why is today different, that you wish to accompany me?” So he did not follow him. The Baal Shem Tov also gave his talmidim a sign: at the moment of his death, both clocks in the house would stop. When he returned from the outhouse, he washed his hands and the larger clock stopped. The talmidim tried to prevent him from seeing the clock but he said, “I know that the clock has stopped, and I’m not worried about myself, because I know that as soon as I leave this door I will enter the other door.” He sat on his bed and asked them to stand around his bed as he told them Divrei Torah about a pillar stretching from the lower Gan Eden to the upper Gan Eden. He asked them to say Viyhi Noam, and he lay down and sat up many times in succession, saying words so softly that they could not hear. Then he asked them to cover him with a sheet and he began to tremble just as he would during Shmoneh Esrei. Then he rested and they saw the small clock stop. They waited a bit, then tested his nostrils with a feather and knew that he had passed away.

 For many years, people disagreed as to whether the Baal Shem Tov had passed away on the first or the second day of Shavuos. According to the author of Kerem Yisroel, already in the first year people did not know the day of his passing. This tradition is also quoted by Betzalel Landau in his book “Habesht Uvnei Heichalo”. Each of his biographers chose whichever date they felt was right.

However, the correct tradition is preserved in the Shivchei Habesht: that it was the first day of Shavuos.  This is also the tradition of Rabbi Isaac of Komarna (Heichal Habracha, Parshas Teitzei), as well as the tradition of Chabad Chassidim (Sichah of the Rayatz 20 Kislev 5692).

The question was finally laid to rest with the discovery of the siddur of Rabbi Avrohom Shimshon of Rashkov, the son of Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polonne, who was the Baal Shem Tov’s leading talmid. The siddur was completed 13 days after the passing of the Baal Shem Tov, and it contains the following sentence, “I received the tradition of annulling a bad dream from my master, Rabbi Yisroel Baal Shem of blessed memory who, due to our many sins, passed away on the first day of Shavuos which was Wednesday of the year 5520…”  Checking the calendar, we see that the first day of Shavuos fell on a Wednesday in that year. (Furthermore, the second day of Shavuos cannot fall on a Wednesday in any year.)

(Hayachid Bedoros p. 136-137)

Rabbi Moshe Zoberman heard that the true date of his passing was the first day of Shavuos; however, the talmidim did not make it public until the second day because they wanted to have him buried by Jews. Although the Shulchan Aruch says not to do this, the Raavad, the Meiri and the Shitah Mekubetzes (brought by the Biur Halacha) say that if the departed was a great and well-respected man such that it would be an insult to his honor to be buried by non-Jews, they may keep him overnight until Yom Tov Sheini.

(Rabbi Zoberman, tape on Shabbos 139 33:14-34:00)

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 45a: Pictures of women in the newspaper

Sanhedrin 45a: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the Sotah is beautiful, the kohein did not uncover her hair or tear open her garments. At the same time, he holds that a woman being executed by Beis Din is not completely dressed. The difference is that in the case of the Sotah, she may survive the ordeal and then the young kohanim would pursue her. But when she is being executed, she is gone. And we don’t have to worry that looking at one woman will ignite someone’s lust for another, because we have a tradition that the yetzer hara only has power over whomever his eyes see.

סנהדרין מה ע”א: רבי יהודה אומר: אם היה לבה נאה ־ לא היה מגלהו, ואם היה שערה נאה ־ לא היה סותרוִ ־ אמר רבה: התם היינו טעמא שמא תצא מבית דין זכאה, ויתגרו בה פירחי כהונה. הכא ־ הא מקטלא. וכי תימא אתי לאיתגרויי באחרנייתא ־ אמר רבה: גמירי, אין יצר הרע שולט אלא במי שעיניו רואות.

It was February 29, 1988, a mere 19 days after the passing of Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbetzin. Apparently, a publication titled Imeinu HaMalkah, Our Mother the Queen had just been printed. Rav Gavriel Zinner wrote to the Rebbe about the photograph of the Rebbetzin that was included in the publication.

Rav Zinner’s Letter

To His Honor, the Admor HaGaon HaKadosh, shlita,

I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbetzin, a’h, was printed, and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.

And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) that the yetzer hara is only dominant in regard to what the eye sees, it is established in Even HaEzer 21:1 that it is forbidden to see even the colored garments of a woman he recognizes (see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach, siman #14, that this applies even if she had passed away). And certainly it is a middas chassidus to be stringent.

“Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.”

The Rebbe’s Response

It was the Rebbe’s custom to respond to letters in a point-by-point rebuttal within the text of the correspondent’s own letter. To see his rebuttal we will reproduce Rav Zinner’s letter and place the Rebbe’s responses in CAPS.

“I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbetzin, a’h, was printed [HE MUST HAVE CERTAINLY EASILY SEEN, EVEN WITHOUT GAZING AT ALL, THAT IN THE NEXT EDITION IT WAS PRINTED NOT IN COLOR BUT IN BLACK AND WHITE] and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.

“And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) that the yetzer ha’ra is only dominant in regard to what the eye sees, it is established in Even Ha’ezer 21:1 that it is forbidden [THE SHULCHAN ARUCH THERE SAYS “GAZING”] to see even the colored garments [IT SAYS AT THE COLORED GARMENTS] of a woman that he recognizes (and see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach, siman #14, that this applies even if she had passed away). [IT SAYS AND HE KNOWS HER  AND BY MENTION OF THE POSITIVE WE INFER THE ABSENCE OF A PROHIBITION WHEN EVEN ONE IS NOT PRESENT AND CERTAINLY ALL THREE] And certainly it is a middas chassidus to be stringent. [FOLLOWING THIS COURSE OF ACTION WILL LIMIT THE ABILITY OF ‘V’HA’CHAI YITEIN AL LIBO’—THE INSPIRATIONAL EFFECT UPON THE LIVING OF THE ONE WHO HAD PASSED AWAY].”

Source: Rabbi Yair Hoffman, quoting the letter as printed in Siman 74 of Rabbi Yehuda Leib Nachmanson’s responsa sefer for Lubavitch shluchim titled “Sh’ut HaShluchim,” as well as in the responsa sefer titled, “Menachem Meishiv Nafshi,” a collection of over 1,000 letters written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

[If the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the yetzer hara only has power over the one that a man’s eyes see, then why would it be forbidden to look at the colorful garments of a woman who is no longer alive?

This depends on how we understand the Gemara in Sanhedrin. The Gemara can be interpreted in two ways: 1) That if a man sees something that attracts him to a certain woman, but that woman is now dead, we are not worried that he will go looking for another woman to sin with. The yetzer hara can only make him attracted to the woman he saw. 2) Seeing one woman can indeed lead him to lust for other women. But the Gemara’s point is that the yetzer hara only works on a man while his eyes are seeing something. Thus now that she is dead and gone, he won’t have lustful thoughts. But seeing her garments can cause those thoughts even after she is gone, which can lead him to sin with others.

This may depend on the correct girsa in the Gemara. This Gemara appears in two places: Sanhedrin 45a and Sotah 8a. In Sanhedrin the girsa is במי שעיניו רואות (“whomever his eyes see”) but in Sotah the girsa is במה שעיניו רואות (“what his eyes see”). The first girsa implies the first pshat and the second girsa implies the second pshat.  

The ruling of the Bach that one may not look at a dead woman’s garments shows that the Bach understood the Gemara the second way.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe gave three reasons to permit the picture: 1) Only gazing is forbidden, not casual looking. 2) It was black and white, not color. 3) The readers of the book did not know the Rebbetzin personally.

But there is room to disagree with all of these.

  1. The reason not to print a picture in a book distributed to the public would be because of “lifnei iver”. The Rebbe assumes that there is no “lifnei iver” here since most people just look casually, without gazing. But an argument could be made that there will always be some people who do gaze, and so “lifnei iver” applies to them.
  2. It’s true that the halacha doesn’t forbid looking at black and white clothing of a woman one knows. But perhaps looking at a picture of the woman is worse than looking at her clothing, and would be forbidden even in black and white.
  3. The Rebbe assumes that “makirah” (he knows her) means that he knows her personally. But perhaps it just means that he knows what she looks like and can picture how she would look wearing the clothing. If so, gazing at an actual picture of the woman is certainly forbidden because even if he didn’t know how she looked before, now he knows. 

Regarding pictures of women in newspapers, the halacha should be even more stringent, because at least when the woman is dead, someone could argue that the halacha doesn’t follow the Bach, but rather the first way of learning the Gemara in Sanhedrin is correct. However, if a newspaper prints pictures of a living woman, there is a chance that someone might be attracted and seek her out. Besides, some of the readers might know her personally, and then even according to the Rebbe’s understanding (that “knowing” means knowing personally), it would be forbidden for them to gaze.

However, one can still argue as follows: women are permitted to walk in the street while dressed modestly, and they are not responsible for those few men who may gaze at them. That’s beyond the scope of lifnei iver, since the women are doing what they need to do. Similarly, the printed picture is needed for a purpose – to inspire others – and we are not responsible for what some may do. According to this, every picture would require a judgement call by the printer as to whether it is necessary or not.]  

Kesubos

Kesubos 2a: Does the Yichud Room Need Eidim?

Kesubos 2a: If the kallah became a niddah on the wedding day and they delayed the wedding, does the chosson have to start supporting the kallah?

Ran: It seems that this Gemara supports the Rambam’s opinion that chuppah means yichud; thus now that she is a niddah, they are forbidden to be alone together, and chuppah cannot take place. That’s why the Gemara considers the possibility that the chosson does not need to support her, since the delay is beyond his control. But according to those Rishonim who hold that chuppah just means that the kallah enters the chosson’s house or domain, why does the wedding need to be delayed? The other Rishonim respond that although the wedding does not need to be delayed, the Chachomim allowed the chosson to delay it because they cannot have relations.

כתובות ב ע”א: פירסה נדה, מהו?

ר”ן: איכא דיליף לה מהכא דחופה היינו יחוד ולפיכך כשפירסה נדה ולא בעל אסורה להתיחד כדאמרינן לקמן דהוא ישן בין האנשים ואשתו ישנה בין הנשים ולאו בת חופה היא ומשום הכי אינו מעלה לה מזונות… ואחרים אומרים דחופה לאו היינו יחוד אלא חופה היינו כל שהביאה הבעל מבית אביה לביתו לשם נשואין וכו’ וכי תימא פירסה נדה למה אינו מעלה לה מזונות הרי בידו להכניסה לחופה! היינו טעמא שכיון שאין חופה זו מסורה לביאה לא חייבוהו חכמים לכנסה.

Rav Avrohom Pam was once mesader kiddushin, and that night at 2 AM, the chosson called him up with a question. “I just realized that one of the witnesses for the yichud room was a relative. Is my wife permitted to me, or do we need to do the yichud over again with kosher witnesses?” Rav Pam told him it was okay, based on an Ohr Somayach. There is a disagreement between the Rambam and other Rishonim brought by the Ran if chuppah is yichud at all. And even if you need yichud, the Ohr Somayach (on Hilchos Ishus Perek 10) is not certain if the eidim are l’kiyumei milsa (necessary to make the chuppah take effect). Thus there is a sfek sfeika (double doubt) and it is permitted.

Rav Pam told this story to Rabbi Yisroel Reisman and then commented, “This halacha is also relevant for a chuppas niddah. At the wedding, they don’t do yichud because it’s not allowed. A few days later, when the wife goes to the mikveh, they do yichud. We are lenient, even lechatchilah, and don’t require two witnesses on this yichud. But if the chosson is a talmid chacham and asks me, then I recommend doing it with witnesses.”

Source: Rabbi Reisman, First tape on Yoreh Deah Siman 195, at 32 minutes

Taanis

Taanis 19a: Earthquakes in Yerushalayim

Taanis 19a. And so too a city where there is disease or falling pieces of buildings, that city fasts and blows the shofar, and all the surrounding cities fast, but do not blow the shofar.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 576:4: We fast because of falling pieces of buildings: if there were many incidents in the city of walls in good condition, not on the riverbank, falling, then it is a calamity and we fast and blow shofar because of it. Similarly, if there was an earthquake or a strong wind that knocked down buildings and killed people, we fast and blow shofar [so that it should not happen again].

תענית יט ע”א. וכן עיר שיש בה דבר או מפולת, אותה העיר מתענה ומתרעת וכל סביבותיה מתענות ולא מתריעות.

שו”ע או”ח תקע”ו ס”ד. וכן מתענין על המפולת שבעיר כיצד הרי שרבתה בעיר מפולת כותלים בריאים שאינן עומדין בצד הנהר ה״ז צרה ומתענין ומתריעין עליה וכן על הרעש ועל הרוחות שהם מפילים הבנין והורגים מתענים ומתריעין עליהם:

The Kaf Hachaim (Orach Chaim 576:26) quotes the Pri Haaretz who says that in Yerushalayim, if there was falling debris or an earthquake, we don’t fast so that it shouldn’t continue, because there is a tradition that falling debris never hurt anyone in Yerushalayim.

He then cites an example: in 5687 (1927) on the 11th of Tammuz, an earthquake struck Yerushalayim and its environs. Many walls fell down; other walls cracked. Miraculously, no one in Yerushalayim was killed; only in the surrounding villages were people killed. All observers marvelled at Hashem’s protection of the Jewish people, and even those who normally did not admit to anything supernatural believed in Hashem and testified that the hand of Hashem had done this.

Similarly, the Pe’as Hashulchan writes in a letter (printed at the beginning of his sefer) that in the famous earthquake of 1837, while hundreds died in Tiberias and Shechem, Yerushalayim had damage to some houses but “thank G-d, not a single person was harmed.”

[We could ask a question here: the Gemara in Berachos 3a states, “It is forbidden to enter a ruined building for three reasons: so as not to arouse suspicion that he is going there to commit a sin, due to falling debris and due to the demons.” The Gemara then explains why we need all these reasons: for each reason, there exists a case where only that reason applies. For example, if the ruins are new and located within a city, then they are unlikely to fall and there are no demons; the only reason would be suspicion. Now, if in Yerushalayim no one is ever harmed by falling debris, then why didn’t the Gemara give the case of a ruin in Yerushalayim?

One might have replied that this special Divine protection was not in effect yet in the Gemara’s time. However, Avos Derabbi Nosson 35:1 lists as one of the ten miracles in Yerushalayim that “falling debris never harmed anyone.” The commentary Kisei Rachamim explains that this means an earthquake.

Another question is that the Gemara says that if the tragedy happened in one city, the surrounding cities also fast. If so, why does the Kaf Hachaim say that Yerushalayim doesn’t fast? They should at least fast because of the surrounding cities that were harmed, as they were in 1927.

It must be that the Kaf Hachaim understood that the reason for fasting over a tragedy in another city is not to pray for the other city – they must pray for themselves – but rather to pray that the tragedy shouldn’t spread to this city.]

Gittin

Gittin 53a: The Devalued Mizrach Vant Seats

Gittin 53a: If someone damages property in an invisible manner (e.g. he makes someone else’s food tamei), if he does so accidentally he is exempt; but if it is intentional, he is liable. Chizkiyah said that, according to strict Torah law, he would be liable in both cases… Rabbi Yochanan said that according to Torah law, both are exempt, but the Sages made the intentional perpetrator liable so that people should not go around with impunity making other people’s food tamei.    

גיטין נג ע”א: אמר חזקיה: דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד ־ חייבֹ, מאי טעמא? היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק, ומה טעם אמרו בשוגג פטור? כדי שיודיעו. אי הכי, אפילו במזיד נמיִ השתא לאוזוקי קא מכוין, אודועי לא מודע ליה? ור׳ יוחנן אמר: דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד ־ פטורֹ מאי טעמא? היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק, ומה טעם אמרו במזיד חייב? שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו, ואומר פטור אני.

Once, there was a shul that sold seats, charging a higher price for the seats closest to the east wall.  At that time, there was space between those seats and the wall. Later, the congregation grew, and the gabbai decided to install new benches in that space along the east wall. These seats were then sold for a high price.

Those who had bought the original eastern seats were now in the second row. They felt this was unfair, given the high price they had paid specifically to sit on “Mizrach Vant.” They argued that the new seats should be given to them, and the second row sold to the newcomers. The gabbai countered that they still had the exact seats they had paid for, so they had no right to complain. Unable to settle the dispute, they presented their arguments before a Rav.

The Rav thought for a while and then said, “Moshe changed the name of Hoshea bin Nun to Yehoshua. Where did he get the yud? The Gemara in Sanhedrin 107a, quoted by Rashi on Bereishis 17:5, says that when Hashem took the yud from Sarai and changed her name to Sarah, the yud complained for years, until finally Hashem added it to the name of Hoshea to make it Yehoshua. But we don’t find that the hei complained that it went from being the first letter to the second letter in Yehoshua’s name. From this we learn that when someone is added in front of you and you become second, you have no right to complain.”   

Source: Rabbi Shmuel Fishbain of White Lake

[According to the opinion that invisible damage is called damage (היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק), the gabbai definitely caused their seats to go down in value and is therefore liable.

Even according to the opinion that invisible damage is not called damage (היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק), which is how we pasken, perhaps here it is considered that the gabbai was מזיד – he intentionally devalued their seats.

Even if not, perhaps here it is considered visibly damaged (היזק ניכר) because there is now another row of seats in front.

Also, even if we say היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק, here the people are considered to be renting their seats for life. They don’t actually own part of the shul; rather, they have a right to the seats closest to the Mizrach Vant every day for the rest of their lives. And since these are no longer the easternmost seats, the gabbai is not continuing to give them what they paid for.

As to the psak of the rav in the story, the response could be that we never find that being at the front of a tzaddik’s name is more valuable than being in the middle, whereas here, it was clear to all that the Mizrach Vant seats were more valuable.]

Bechoros

Bechoros 29a: The need for hashgacha

Bechoros 29a: The Sages permitted Illa of Yavneh to charge a fee for checking a firstborn animal for blemishes (in the absence of the Beis Hamikdash, a firstborn is permitted to eat only if it has a blemish). He charged four issar for a sheep or goat and six issar for a cow, regardless of whether he declared it blemished or unblemished.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 18:18: The shochet, who inspects the animal for defects after slaughter, must charge the same fee whether the animal turns out to be kosher or treif, lest he come to rule leniently in order to make more money. For this reason, it is customary in some places that no butcher slaughters and checks his own animals, but rather he has it done by the community shochet.

בכורות כט. כאילא ביבנה שהתירו לו חכמים להיות נוטל ארבע איסרות לבהמה דקה וששה לגסה בין תם ובין בעל מום.

שו”ע יו”ד י”ח סי”ח הטבח צריך שיטול שכר מן הטרפות כמו מן הכשרות, הגה שלא יבא להקל להכשיר כדי לקבל שכרו מן הכשרות ולכן נהגו בקצת מקומות שאין אדם שוחט ובודק לעצמו אלא אותן הממונים מן הקהל.

Once, the kosher bakery owners of Antwerp met together and decided to stop giving the keys of their bakeries to the mashgichim. [Presumably, they didn’t want to have to wait for the mashgiach to come and open the bakery in the morning.] The Rav Hamachshir, Rabbi Chaim Kreiswirth, did not back down. Taking several of the heads of the kehillah with him, he went around on Shabbos to all the shuls and announced that until further notice, he was removing his hashgacha from all the bakeries, with no exceptions. He added that if anyone wanted bread, he permitted them to eat “pas paltar” – kosher bread baked by a non-Jewish baker.

The following Friday, an oven was set up in the courtyard of the shul, and the Rav himself, together with the heads of the kehillah, baked challah for Shabbos, for those who wished to be strict and not eat pas paltar on Shabbos.

One of the bakery owners was a member of a prominent Chassidishe kehillah, and an influential member of that Chassidus announced in shul, “So-and-so is totally reliable and I will continue to eat his products, with or without hashgacha!” And to show he meant what he said, the next morning he brought cakes and other baked goods from that bakery to shul.

Not long afterward, this man contracted a stomach illness and died. After that, no one dared defy Rav Kreiswirth’s authority in Antwerp. 

Source: Mayim Chaim, page 144

[The above quotation from Yoreh Deah 18 explains why we need hashgacha in general, rather than relying on a business owner who is a shomer Torah. But this story deals with a different aspect of hashgacha: how to handle a store where the labor is done by non-Jews. Does the mashgiach have to be present all the time, or can he make occasional, unexpected visits (יוצא ונכנס)? Rav Kreiswirth held that in a bakery, the mashgiach must be present all the time, and the only way to enforce that is by giving him the only key to the bakery.

Why wasn’t he willing to rely on occasional visits? After all, the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 61a) says that יוצא ונכנס works, and it’s brought in Shulchan Aruch. The answer may be that occasional visits make workers afraid to do something that takes a while, such as unloading non-kosher ingredients and using them. But in a Jewish-owned bakery, which needs to be pas yisroel (the heter of pas paltar only applies when the owner is a non-Jew, as the Shach 112:7 says), lighting the oven takes only a second. If the workers were to open the bakery in the morning and find the pilot light out, they might relight it, and when the mashgiach arrives half an hour later, he would never know that anything had gone wrong.

This point is made by R’ Moshe in his teshuva requiring a mashgiach temidi on fish (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:8). These fish were sold without the scales, so the customer would have no way of knowing if they were kosher fish. He writes that if the skinning were done by hand, the mashgiach could walk in and out, and that would be enough to deter the workers from skinning a non-kosher fish lest the mashgiach walk in and catch him in the middle. But the skinning is done very fast by a machine, and it would be easy to get it done in that moment when the mashgiach’s back is turned. Therefore the mashgiach must check every single fish.]