Author: YC

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

Pesachim

Pesachim 50b: Paskening when the shailah is no longer relevant

YCLeave a comment

Pesachim 50b: If one goes from a place where they work on Erev Pesach morning to a place where they do not work, or vice versa, he must follow the stringencies of both places.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 496:3: Residents of Eretz Yisroel who came to Chutz Laaretz are forbidden to do work on Yom Tov Sheini when in a city, even if they intend to return.

פסחים נ ע”ב: ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין או ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם וחומרי מקום שהלך לשם.

שו”ע או”ח תצ”ו ס”ג: בני ארץ ישראל שבאו לחוצה לארץ אסורים לעשות מלאכה ביום טוב שני בישוב אפילו דעתו לחזור.

A man from Eretz Yisroel who was staying in Antwerp for Yom Tov came over to Rav Chaim Kreiswrith and asked, “I just put on tefillin on Yom Tov Sheini. Was that correct?” Rav Kreiswirth refused to answer, saying, “I don’t answer questions about something that was already done. Siyata dishmaya is given to a posek only on questions that are relevant to someone’s future actions.”

Source: Mayim Chaim, p. 173

[According to the Shulchan Aruch, who holds that a Ben Eretz Yisroel keeps the Yom Tov Sheini in Chutz Laaretz only as a chumra, clearly he would be obligated to be machmir the opposite way as well, and put on tefillin.

However, the Chacham Tzvi (167) disagrees. He writes that minhag hamakom applies only in questions of halacha, where the same halacha applies in all locations, yet different communities follow different opinions. For example, the Gemara says that Eretz Yisroel and Bavel followed two different practices as to whether a certain fat is permitted. What is forbidden fat is forbidden everywhere, but certain places had a minhag to follow the opinion that considers certain fats not forbidden. If the community that considered it forbidden were to move en masse to the other location, they would continue to refrain from eating it, because the prohibition is not dependent on location. But Yom Tov Sheini is not a universal halachic question; it simply depends on whether the messengers of Beis Din reached that particular place. Therefore, people from Chutz Laaretz who are staying temporarily in Eretz Yisroel should only keep one day Yom Tov, just as they would if they had visited during the time when Beis Din sent out messengers.

According to this Chacham Tzvi, a resident of Eretz Yisroel while visiting Chutz Laaretz he must act completely like the local people, which would mean he does not put on tefillin either. Perhaps this was the question the man wanted to ask Rav Kreiswirth.]

Succah

Succah 6b: Is nail polish a chatzitzah?

YCLeave a comment

Succah 6b: By Torah law, a chatzitzah only invalidates if it covers most of the body and the person does not want it there. But the Sages forbid the case when it covers most of the body and he does not mind, as well as the case when it covers the minority of the body and he does mind.

סוכה ו ע”ב: דאמר רבי יצחק דבר תורה, רובו ומקפיד עליו ־ חוצץ, ושאינו מקפיד עליו ־ אינו חוצץ. וגזרו על רובו שאינו מקפיד משום רובו המקפיד, ועל מיעוטו המקפיד משום רובו המקפיד.

Rabbi Yisroel Reisman told the following story to illustrate how people don’t always tell the rav the whole story. An experienced rav knows he may need to ask questions to get the information needed to answer the shailah.

A young man who learned in the kollel of Torah Vodaas came to Rabbi Reisman and said, “My wife went to the mikveh last night, and then in the morning she realized that she had missed removing nail polish from one nail.”

Certainly women do not want to be seen with just one nail polished, so this would seem to be a real chatzitzah. Rabbi Reisman couldn’t believe that the woman did not catch such a glaring mistake during her preparations for the mikveh, so he pressed the husband, “How could that be?”

“Well,” he said, “she was in a cosmetics store and wanted to try out a new color, but didn’t want to mess up her fingers, so she took off her shoe and sock and tried it on one of her toenails, and then a week later, when preparing for the mikveh, she forgot about it.”

“Ah, so it was the toe, not the finger. Does your wife wear sandals or open-toed shoes?”

“No,” he said, “her toes are always covered in public.”

“In that case,” said Rabbi Reisman, “her tevilah was fine. The nail polish was not a chatzitzah because she didn’t mind having it there.”

Source: Shiur on Yoreh Deah 198:1

Eiruvin

Eiruvin 55b: Building a mikvah in a quiet area

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.

The holy Shamloyer Rav zt”l, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, who perished Al Kiddush Hashem in the Holocaust, was one of the greatest Torah scholars of his time. He published many volumes of chiddushim, had a reputation as a fiery speaker, and taught generations of students.

It once happened that the pipes of the mikvah in Shamloy burst, causing the walls of the building to cave in. The entire mikvah needed to be rebuilt. Since the old mikvah stood on a very low spot relative to the city, and was reachable only via a long staircase, the leaders of the kehillah decided to rebuild it in a better, more accessible place.

But the Shamloyer Rav did not agree, because the new location was to be in a crowded Jewish neighborhood where everyone would see the women coming and going from the mikvah. The Rema says (198:48) that a woman must go to the mikvah discreetly, unnoticed by others in the city. Therefore, the Rav wanted the mikvah rebuilt in its old location.

One of the board members of the kehillah was a building contractor, and he argued that it would be dangerous to rebuild the mikvah in its old location. The kehillah board members were in a dilemma. On the one hand, they wanted to follow their Rav, who assured them it could be built safely in the old location, but on the other hand they feared that the contractor might be correct.

And so the rebuilding project was delayed, which pained the Rav greatly. He wanted to see the mikvah rebuilt as soon as possible.

One Shabbos afternoon, as he was saying his Pirkei Avos shiur, he came to a mishnah in the first perek which begins with the words, “He used to say…” The Rav posed the question: Why does the mishnah have to say these words?  Why can’t it just proceed directly with the quotation? 

He answered this based on the Gemara in Sotah 5a, which says that a Torah scholar should have a small measure of pride – an eighth of an eighth. Why? Isn’t arrogance a bad character trait? The Vilna Gaon explains that the Gemara is alluding to the eighth posuk in the eighth parsha of the Torah, in which Yaakov Avinu says, “I have become smaller due to all the kindness and truth You have shown Your servant.” Yaakov Avinu was implying that he did indeed have past merits, but Hashem had already rewarded him for them. 

Usually, the Shamloyer Rav continued, a person reaches humility by comparing himself with others who are greater than him. But talmidei chachomim and tzaddikim can reach humility in a different way: by comparing their current selves to their old selves. They should recall with pride their younger years, when they used to learn so diligently and daven with kavanah, but then think, “Today I’m older and weaker; I’m not as great as I once was.”

And that brings us to the explanation of our mishnah: “He used to say.” Just as Yaakov Avinu believed he had some merits from his younger years, our Tanna, with an eighth of an eighth of pride, said that in the old days he used to say good Torah.

At this point the Shamloyer Rav raised his voice and began to speak in the fiery style for which he was so famous: “I can testify that once upon a time, I was a true yerei shomayim. I learned Torah day and night.   On many nights, I stayed up learning Torah all night long. Without a doubt, I have some reward awaiting me in Olam Haba.  Everyone knows that the reward for learning Torah is tremendous. For the little that I learn nowadays, I don’t think I will deserve any reward. But in the old days when I was young, I learned with all my strength and for that I deserve some reward.

“And I announce here publicly that I give up my entire reward to anyone who can pay to rebuild the mikvah in its old location, as I want it, so that it should be a place of privacy and tznius!”

The audience was shocked to hear these intense words, spoken in all seriousness, coming out of his holy mouth. The next morning, Mr. Avraham Lauber came to the Rav and said, “I take you up on your offer. I am ready to pay for the entire mikvah in exchange for the Rav’s reward in Olam Haba.”

The Rav’s face shone with happiness. With tears running down his cheeks, he shook hands with Mr. Lauber, and said to him clearly: “I hereby give you my share in Olam Haba, my reward for the Torah that I learned in my young years, as a complete and irreversible gift.”

With the money donated, the Rav hired a new contractor from Grossvardein, who was able to build the mikvah in its old location.

Source: Even Shleimah, v. 1, Toldos Rabbeinu

Bava Basra

Bava Basra 8b: Diverting tzedaka money to a different cause

YCLeave a comment

Bava Basra 8b: The people of the town are allowed to switch funds from kuppah (for the local poor) to tamchuy (for all the poor in the world) and vice versa, or to divert the funds to whatever cause they want.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 256:4: The people of the town are allowed to switch funds from kuppah (for the local poor) to tamchuy (for all the poor in the world) and vice versa, or to divert the funds to any public need that they choose, even though they did not stipulate such at the time they collected it. And if there is a great rabbi in the city and all charity is collected subject to his discretion, and he distributes it to the poor as he sees fit, then he can divert the money to any public need as he sees fit.

בבא בתרא ח ע”ב: ורשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה, ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו.

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה רנ”ו ס”ד: רשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה ולשנותם לכל מה שירצו מצרכי צבור ואע״פ שלא התנו כן בשעה שגבו ואם היה במדינה חכם גדול שהכל גובים על דעתו והוא יחלק לעניים כפי מה שיראה ה״ז יכול לשנותו לכל מה שיראה לו מצרכי צבור.

The Beserminer Rav, Rabbi Yitzchok Isaac Lieberman zt”l, lived in Chicago starting in the 1940’s, and he begged the Satmar Rebbe many times to spend a Shabbos in Chicago to give encouragement to the local Jews and influence them spiritually. The Rebbe’s gabboim told the Beserminer Rav that undertaking such a difficult trip, which would involve a long train ride, would be very taxing on the Rebbe’s already busy schedule. But if the visit could bring in at least $5,000 for the Yitav Lev yeshiva in Jerusalem, established by the Rebbe for young Holocaust survivors – the Rebbe would go. Running this yeshiva had already brought the Rebbe deep into debt.

The Beserminer Rav replied that he would make sure to raise the $5,000. At the beginning of 5708 (October 1947), right after the Yamim Tovim, the Rebbe traveled to Chicago, where the local Jews spent an uplifting Shabbos with him. After Shabbos, a dinner was held to benefit the Yitav Lev yeshiva, and the Beserminer Rav worked hard to collect the entire sum needed.

Before the Rebbe returned, the rabbonim of Chicago came to bid him farewell, and they discussed the state of the Jewish community. When the subject of the mikvah came up, they told the Rebbe that the mikvah needed repair, but there was no money to do the repair.

The Rebbe went right away to see the mikvah for himself, and indeed it did not comply with one of the stringencies that he kept. He asked the rabbonim why they couldn’t make the change, and they replied that fixing it would require digging down to the foundations, a major expense that was beyond their capabilities. The Rebbe asked how much it would cost to do the work, and they estimated $5,000. The Rebbe didn’t think twice; he took out the entire sum he had raised in Chicago to pay off some of his debts on the Yitav Lev yeshiva, and gave it to the rabbonim to use for the mikvah… Understandably, this made a big impression on the rabbonim, and they quickly moved to get the mikvah fixed.

The Rebbe later wrote to the Beserminer Rav, “Thank you for bringing me to Chicago to fix the mikvah and make it compliant with the highest standards. I will always be grateful to you in this world and the next.”

Source: Sefer Mayim Chaim, by Shmuel Shloime Teller

Moed Katan

Moed Katan 2a: Building a shul on Chol Hamoed

YCLeave a comment

Moed Katan 2a: We may fix roads and town squares and mikvaos, we may take care of all public needs, and we may mark graves.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 544:1: Public needs may be taken care of on Chol Hamoed, for example, fixing the roads and removing potential dangers from them, marking graves so that the kohanim stay away, and fixing mikvaos. Rema: This heter is only for things like the above that are needs of the body, but other public needs, such as a shul, are forbidden to build on Chol Hamoed. And the same goes for any mitzvah needs – it is forbidden to do professional work for them.

Mishnah Berurah: This means even a shul that is needed to daven in with a minyan on Chol Hamoed, and even if they have no other place to hold the minyan, it is still forbidden, since this is not a bodily need. And even if they already began construction, and it just needs to be finished on Chol Hamoed, it is forbidden, since this is a professional job. However, the poskim (the Beis Yosef in Bedek Habayis) say that nowadays, building a shul is a davar ha’aved, because we fear that if we wait until after the Moed, the non-Jewish workers will refuse to continue building. The Maamar Mordechai says that the answer to this shailah varies depending on the time and place, and every rav must pasken as he sees fit.

מועד קטן ב ע”ב: ומתקנין את הדרכים ואת הרחובות ואת מקוות המים, ועושין כל צורכי הרבים, ומציינין את הקברות.

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תקמד,א: צרכי רבים מותר לעשותה בחול המועד כגון לתקן הדרכים ולהסיר מהם המכשולות ולציין הקברות כדי שיזהרו מהם הכהנים ולתקן המקואות: הגה ודוקא צרכי רבים כאלו שהם צריכים לגוף האדם אבל שאר צרכי רבים כגון בנין בית הכנסת (ב״י בשם תשובת הרשב״א) אסור לעשות במועד וה״ה דלשאר צרכי מצוה אסור לעשות מלאכת אומן במועד (ריב״ש סימן רנ״ו)

משנה ברורה: כגון בנין ביהכ״נ. לרבותא נקט דאפילו בנין ביהכ״נ שהוא מצוה כדי להתפלל בו במועד בעשרה ואפילו אין להם מקום אחר להתפלל בעשרה ג״כ אסור שזה אין צורך לגוף האדם ואפילו התחילו מכבר לבנותו וא״צ במועד אלא להשלימו אסור מפני שהוא צריך מעשה אומן לזה. כתבו הפוסקים דבזה״ז הוי בנין ביהכ״נ דבר האבד דחיישינן שאם ימתין עד אחר המועד יעכבו העכו״מ מלבנותו. ובספר מאמר מרדכי כתב דהכל לפי המקום והזמן ואין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות ע״ש.

When Rabbi Moshe Heinemann and his kehillah built the Agudah building on Park Heights in Baltimore, they chose the cheapest contractor, who was $60,000 cheaper than his competitors. But in the middle of the construction he went bankrupt. It was Chol Hamoed, and the workers were not willing to sit and wait. Now it was a question of davar ha’aved – if the Agudah didn’t pay the workers to keep working, they would leave and find other employers to work for. The Agudah would then have to find a new contractor, which would cost them a lot more, since the contractor would know they were stuck. Therefore, based on the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Heinemann permitted the shul to pay the workers and continue the construction on Chol Hamoed.

Source: Kuntres Mah Nomar, Hilchos Chol Hamoed, p. 7

[Why is a mikvah considered a physical need while a shul is considered a mitzvah need? One answer could be that in those days people didn’t have private bathrooms, and they had to bathe in the public bathhouse. A mikvah is simply a bathhouse that is made according to the halachos of mikvaos. Since they would need it anyway to get clean, it is considered a physical need. According to this, nowadays it would be forbidden to build a mikvah on Chol Hamoed.

Alternatively, we could say that a mikvah is really for physical needs – to permit husbands and wives. The same reasoning would explain why it is allowed to mark graves: because otherwise kohanim would have difficulty getting around, so this is considered a physical need.]    

Makos

Makos 16b: The Cat in the Cholent

YCLeave a comment

Makos 16b: Rav Bivi bar Abaye said: Someone who drinks from the vessel used by the doctor to draw blood is transgressing “lo seshaktzu”.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 116:6: It is forbidden to consume food or drinks that are revolting to people, for example, if vomit, feces or puss got mixed into them. Similarly, it is forbidden to eat or drink out of dirty dishes, such as those used in the bathroom or glass containers used to let blood, and the like; and similarly one should not eat with dirty hands or on dirty dishes – because all of these are included in the prohibition “do not make yourselves disgusting.”

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 103:2 If the issur gives a bad taste to the food, but it is still edible, then as long as the issur is less than 50%, it is kosher.  

מכות טז ע”ב: אמר רב ביבי בר אביי: האי מאן דשתי בקרנא דאומנא ־ קא עבר משום לא תשקצו.

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קטז,ו: אסור לאכול מאכלים ומשקים שנפשו של אדם קצה בהם כגון משקים ואוכלים שנתערבו בהם קיא או צואה וליחה סרוחה וכיוצא בהם וכן אסור לאכול ולשתות בכלים הצואים שנפשו של אדם קצה בהם כגון כלים של בית הכסא וכלי זכוכית שמקיזים בהם וכיוצא בהם וכן לא יאכל בידים מזוהמות ועל גבי כלים מלוכלכים שכל אלו בכלל אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם.

יורה דעה קג,ב: פגם זה אין צריך שיפגום לגמרי עד שיהא קץ לאכלו אלא אפילו פוגם קצת אינו אוסר תערובתו ויש מי שאומר דהיינו דוקא כשנתערב איסור מועט עם היתר מרובה אבל איסור מרובה לתוך היתר מועט ואפילו מחצה על מחצה אין אומרים נותן טעם לפגם מותר עד שיפגום לגמרי שאינו ראוי למאכל אדם.

One Shabbos in the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the 1948 war, when the food supply was short, a pot of cholent sat cooking on the stove.  One of the many hungry cats in the neighborhood smelled the cholent and wanted to eat some, so he climbed up onto the edge of the pot, stretched his neck down and tried to eat, but unfortunately, in the process he fell in and died. In the morning, the cook came in and saw that the volume of the cholent had increased. Eventually, he realized that a dead cat was in the cholent. They had a non-Jew remove the cat, but the question was whether the cholent was kosher or not.

There are two shailos here: 1) Is the cat considered “nosein taam lifgam”, so that its taste requires only a rov to be mevatel it – no need for 60 times? 2) Would this be considered “bal teshaktzu” – eating a disgusting thing? The cook asked the rosh yeshiva, who said that the cat was considered “lifgam” because in Eretz Yisroel, no one eats cats. Regarding the second question, he said not to tell any of the bochurim that a cat was cooked in the cholent, because when you don’t know, there is no prohibition of “bal teshaktzu”. By the time they found out, it was already half a year later. After that, they made sure to put a cover on the cholent every time.

Source: Kuntres Mah Nomar, Hilchos Kashrus, p. 139