Pesachim

Pesachim 50b: Is two days Yom Tov “minhag hamakom”?

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.

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, וכל זמן שלא הגיע לישוב אפילו אין דעתו לחזור מותר לפי שעדיין לא הוקבע להיות כמותן אבל אם הגיע לישוב ואין דעתו לחזור נעשה כמותן ואסור בין במדבר בין בישוב וכל חוץ לתחום אין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 496:3) rules that keeping one day Yom Tov in Eretz Yisroel or two days outside of Eretz Yisroel falls in the category of minhag hamakom and is subject to the rule in our Mishnah. 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.

When the Satmar Rav lived in Eretz Yisroel for a whole year in 1945-46, he kept only one day Yom Tov. After moving to the United States, he made four visits to Eretz Yisroel (in 1952, 1955, 1959 and 1965). He was always careful not to be in Eretz Yisroel over Yom Tov, so as not to run into the dilemma of whether to keep one day and risk doing work on Yom Tov, or to keep two days and risk neglecting the mitzvah of tefillin. Although most poskim agree with the Shulchan Aruch, he felt that as a descendent of the Chacham Tzvi, he should be careful not to violate the Chacham Tzvi’s opinion.

Source: Rabbi Moshe Zoberman, shiur on Taanis 10b

Nazir

Nazir 55a: Kohanim Flying Over a Cemetery

YCLeave a comment

Nazir 55a. If a person is carried into Chutz Laaretz in a box, Rebbi holds he is tamei and Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda (RYBY) holds tahor. The dispute hinges on whether a tent carried by people or animals can shield a person from the defiled earth over which he is floating. But if the tent is flying in the air, not carried by anyone, even RYBY agrees that it does not shield him. Thus RYBY said: If one had a big box of utensils and threw it over a dead body, the utensils inside are tamei, but if the box was standing still, they are tahor. (Tosafos, second explanation)

נזיר נה ע”א: לא, דכולי עלמא משום גושא, מר סבר: אהל זרוק שמיה אהל, ומר סבר: לא שמיה אהל. והתניא, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: תיבה שהיא מלאה כלים וזרקה על פני המת באהל ־ טמאה, ואם היתה מונחת ־ טהורהִ.

תוספות: אהל זרוק – שנכנס בשידה שבהמה או אדם מוליכים אותו שמיה אהל לחוץ ולהפסיק, וצ״ל דעדיף מטלית המנפנפת דתנן במס׳ אהלות (פ״ח מ״ה) דאין חוצצין בפני הטומאה ואין מביאין, והיינו טעמא דהכא עדיף משום דרגלי האדם או הבהמה הנושאים השידה והתיבה נוגעים בארץ אבל הטלית מנפנפת באויר, ומר סבר אהל זרוק לא שמיה אהל והיינו דאמר והתניא בניחותא.

The Shvus Yaakov was asked the following question: a kohein lived in one of a ring of attached houses that all opened onto a central courtyard. Someone died in one of these houses, so the kohein left his house and stood in the courtyard. But he could not exit the courtyard to the street without passing under a roof connected to houses. Does he have to stand there under the open sky until the body is removed, or is there some permitted way for him to get out?

The Shvus Yaakov quotes the above explanation of Tosafos, that RYBY holds that a carried tent protects, and only a flying tent does not protect. The Rashba rules like RYBY, so this kohein could be carried out in a large box (at least 3 cubic amos in volume). The Rambam, however, seems to give contradictory rulings: in Tumas Meis 11:5 he follows Rebbi, but in Nezirus 5:18 he follows RYBY. The Shvus Yaakov proposes that the halacha follows RYBY on a Torah level, but on a Rabbinic level we are strict like Rebbi. Therefore, even the Rambam would agree that the kohein could be carried out, because human dignity supersedes a Rabbinic prohibition. 

The exact wording of the Rambam in Tumas Meis 11:5 is:

הנכנס לארץ העכו״ם בשידה תיבה ומגדל הפורחין באויר טמא, שאהל זרוק אינו קרוי אהל.

Given that the Rambam says explicitly “flying in the air,” it is puzzling that the Shvus Yaakov did not resolve the apparent contradiction in the Rambam by saying, as Tosafos does, that when the box is literally flying through the air, it does not shield, but when carried it does shield.

The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 211:5) argues that the Rambam in Tumas Meis could not have meant a literally flying tent, because then he would be neglecting to pasken on the question of a dragged or carried tent, which is the subject of the dispute between Rebbi and RYBY. Rather the Rambam means a carried tent. The Rambam didn’t bother addressing a real flying tent because that can’t happen in real life, except by the powers of a Shem or by throwing.

The Chazon Ish asks: what about the doors that were placed on top of oxen when the children went to draw water for the Parah Adumah? (Tosafos in Eiruvin 31a asks this question on Rebbi and responds that Rebbi will disagree with that Baraisa. But the Chazon Ish’s question is on the Rambam, who rules like Rebbi, yet says that the doors were used.) He answers by quoting the Mishneh Lamelech who says that since it was only a chumra to protect the children from tumah, they were lenient. The Chazon Ish explains that they relied on RYBY, as perhaps this was a dispute going back to the Bayis Sheni times too.  

Based on the above, the Chazon Ish rules that a car or train moving over a cemetery does not protect its riders from tumah. And all the more so that an airplane, which is not supported by anything, would be considered a flying tent, so a kohein is not allowed to fly over a cemetery.

The Tzitz Eliezer 12:62 allows a kohein to ride in a bus on a road built over a cemetery. His reason is that he understood the Rambam in Tumas Meis to mean that a “flying tent” does not shield from tumah only when it is literally flying, but when supported by people, animals or wheels, it does shield.

In summary, the Chazon Ish is the strictest opinion here: he does not even allow traveling in a car over a cemetery. The Tzitz Eliezer is the most lenient, while the Shvus Yaakov takes a middle position, forbidding it only Rabbinically and therefore allowing it in cases of human dignity. But all three poskim agree that a kohein is forbidden to fly in the airplane over a cemetery.

This issue became a practical one late in the summer of 2001, when a newly-observant Israeli pilot asked a number of halachic authorities: How is it that kohanim are permitted to embark on flights leaving Ben Gurion airport that pass over the cemetery in Holon? Upon investigation it was discovered that this had been a problem since 1984, when flight patterns were altered to minimize flying over densely populated areas north of Ben Gurion airport and to avoid overflying a military area south of the airport. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner, Rav Nissim Karelitz and the Badatz all ruled that it would be forbidden for kohanim to take those flights.

In February of 2012, the problem deepened when the north-south runway at the airport became unusable, and all flights began using the east-west runway. Under international law, a runway can only be used in one direction at one time, for both inbound and outbound flights. At times of the day when the runway was being used for westbound traffic, the takeoffs were not a problem, as they flew directly west out over the Mediterranean, but the landings were a problem: the flight path to approach the airport led directly over the cemetery, after which the pilots made a U-turn and approached the runway from the east. At times when traffic was eastbound, the departing flights made the same U-turn in the opposite direction and passed over the cemetery.

When the problem was discovered, some kohanim began wrapping themselves in plastic bags during takeoff and landing to shield themselves from tumah. This led to shock and fear among other passengers, as well as endangered the kohanim themselves, since the plastic bag was not allowed to have any air holes, and it would be difficult for them to access oxygen masks if necessary. Many flights were delayed because the crew refused to allow kohanim to use the bags.

After much negotiation, the religious community prevailed upon the airport authorities to have the pilots alter their flight path slightly to avoid the cemetery. However, this was only possible during the day, when the pilot controls the airplane manually. At night, the arriving pilots have to be electronically guided into the airport, as they do not rely on visual directions. All incoming flights have to locate a beam, and the beam then takes over control of the plane from the pilot and guides the plane to the runway. 

What about changing the beam system to guide the plane to avoid the cemetery at night? The authorities were not willing to do this, because they preferred that the nighttime flights pass over the vast Holon Cemetery, rather than over residential areas where the noise would be a disturbance.

It was noted that many American-bound flights take off between 12 and 1 AM, at which time the runway is used in the westbound direction, so these flights were not an issue.

[The question here is why anyone would think that a plastic bag does any good. Just as the plane does not shield the kohein from tumah because it is a flying tent, the plastic bag is also flying and has the exact same problem. Perhaps the answer is that the Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 211:9) adds that even if we were to follow the opinion that a flying tent is a tent, the airplane, as it is made of metal, does not shield its passengers from tumah. Thus the plastic bag would solve the problem at least according to this opinion. However, as we have established above, the halacha is that a tent that is literally flying is not a tent, so the difference between metal and plastic is academic.

This does come into play in a bus or car, where there are some such as the Tzitz Eliezer mentioned above who permit a kohein to ride over the cemetery. The Tzitz Eliezer advises that since the vehicle is made of metal, it is preferable for the kohein to place a flat wooden board under himself while passing over the cemetery.]

Source: dinonline.org, yated.com.

Taharos

Keilim 17:14 A Container Made of Moon Dust

YCLeave a comment

Keilim 17:14. Among the creations of the first day there is tumah, of the second day there is no tumah, of the third day there is tumah, and of the fourth and fifth days there is no tumah, except for the wing of the osprey and the coated shell of the ostrich egg… And everything created on the sixth day is tamei.

כלים פרק יז, משנה יד. ויש במה שנברא ביום הראשון טומאה. בשני אין בו טומאה. בשלישי יש בו טומאה. ברביעי ובחמישי אין בהם טומאה. חוץ מכנף העוז וביצת נעמית המצופה.

ופירש הרע”ב: הכי קאמר, יש דברים שנבראו ביום ראשון שהעושה כלי מהם יש בהם טומאה, כגון הארץ שנבראת ביום ראשון, וכלי חרס הנעשים ממנה טמאים. בשני אין בו טומאה שבו נברא רקיע ואין בו טומאה. בשלישי נבראו אילנות, וכלי עץ הנעשים מהם מקבלים טומאה. ברביעי נתלו המאורות ואין בהם טומאה. בחמישי עופות ודגים ואם עשה מהן כלים אין מקבלים טומאה.

The Bartenura explains that if one makes a container out of the dust of the earth, which was created on the first day, it is tamei; but the rakia, which was created on the second day, has no tumah. If one makes a container out of wood, which was created on the third day, it is tamei, but on the fourth day the luminaries were created and they have no tumah.

After the first men walked on the moon in 1969, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach commented that now we understand the true meaning of this Mishnah. The Bartenura’s explanation does not fit well into the words. The Mishnah is apparently contrasting the first and third days with the second and fourth day, yet according to the Bartenura there is really no difference; it is just a change of the case. Just as the rakia and the luminaries are not tamei, so too the earth and the trees in their natural state are not tamei; it is only the containers made from them that are tamei.

But now that men have gone to the moon and brought back moon dust, we can understand the Mishnah quite simply. This moon dust, if made into a container similar to earthenware, would not be tamei. This is the difference between earth dust, created on the first day, and moon dust, created on the fourth day. This is what the Mishnah originally meant when it was given at Sinai. It was only in the course of the generations that the meaning was forgotten, and scholars learning the Mishnah could not imagine bringing dust down from the moon, hence the Bartenura’s explanation.

[It would seem that the same applies to a container made of dust from a meteorite that landed on earth, a case that was relevant before man reached the moon.]

Rabbi Menachem Kasher quotes the above explanation in his sefer about the moon, and disagrees. After all, the Mishnah also says that what was created on the second day is not tamei. The rakia, which he understands to mean the atmosphere, cannot be made into a container.

[However, we do not really know what the rakia is, since the Torah describes it as a barrier between the waters above and the waters below.]

Also, granted the Bartenura’s explanation seems forced, but the Mishnah flows well as the Rambam explains it in his Commentary on the Mishnayos: the entire Mishnah is speaking about the creations in their natural state, not man-made containers fashioned from them. Day 1: Water can become tamei. Day 2: The rakia cannot become tamei. Day 3: Fruits and vegetables can become tamei. Day 4: The luminaries cannot become tamei.

Furthermore, there is a three-way dispute in the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 12:11): one opinion holds that the moon (as well as the sun) was actually fashioned from the earth. At least according to this opinion, the same laws of tumah and taharah should apply to vessels made from its dust. Another opinion holds that the heavenly bodies were created separately from the heavens, and yet a third holds that even the earth was created from the heavens.

Source: Ha’adam Al Hayareiach, pp. 65-72. (Rabbi Kasher quotes the other writer anonymously, but Rabbi Moshe Zoberman, in a shiur on Taanis 9b, said it was R’ Shlomo Zalman who held this position.)

Chullin

Chullin 111a: A Chicken Cooked With Its Liver

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 111a: Rabbah bar Rav Huna was eating at Rabbah bar Rav Nachman’s house. He noticed that the liver had an artery that was saturated with blood. He said to them, “Why did you do that?” They said: “What should we have done?” He said, “Tear it crisscross and put the torn side down while you roast it.”

קיא ע”א: אשכח ההוא כבדא דהוה בה סמפונא דבליעא דמא, אמר להו אמאי עבדיתו הכי? אמרו ליה: אלא היכי נעביד? אמר להו: קרעו שתי וערב וחיתוכא לתחת.

שו”ע יו”ד ע”ג ס”א: הכבד יש בו ריבוי דם לפיכך לכתחלה אין לו תקנה לבשלו ע״י מליחה אלא קורעו שתי וערב ומניח חיתוכו למטה וצולהו (שיהא ראוי לאכילה) (או״ה נתיב ט״ו) ואחר כך יכול לבשלו… ובדיעבד מותר אם נתתבשל לבדו בקדירה (בלא צלייה) אבל הקדירה אסורה שפולטת ואינה בולעת ויש מי שאוסר. רמ”א: וכן נוהגין לאסור הכל.

A man came to Rabbi Avrohom Pam and said, “My wife bought a whole chicken and didn’t realize that the liver was packed inside. She cooked it in soup, and then served the chicken on china plates. We have no problem throwing out the chicken and kashering the soup pot, but is there any heter to save the china plates?”

Rav Pam replied, “The Shach (73:8) says that although we hold like the opinion that liver needs to be roasted, and therefore if it was cooked one may not eat it, still the plate on which the liver was served after cooking does not become forbidden. The Pri Megadim asks why not – doesn’t pouring from a kli rishon cook the outer layer of the plate? Also, the Shach himself in 74 and 105 holds that a hot piece of solid food (דבר גוש) can transmit taste even when in a kli sheini.

The Chavos Daas answers:

ולענ”ד לא קשיא מידי דהא כתב הש”ך בסימן ק”ה ס”ק י”ח דחתיכה שנאסרה מחמת דם הוי כאיסור בלוע, ושם בס”ק כ”א שאינו מבליע כדי קליפה רק מגוף הדבר אבל מאיסור בלוע אינו בולע אפילו בשמן וכ”ש דם דכחוש הוא ודאי דאינו יוצא מחתיכה בלא רוטב.

“When the solid piece of hot food being placed on the plate is not forbidden on its own, only because of something else that got absorbed in it, then it does not transmit taste to the plate through pouring. And a piece of meat that is forbidden because it contains blood is like any other piece that has something forbidden absorbed in it.”

Therefore, said Rav Pam, the chicken, which contains blood from the liver cooked with it, will not forbid the plate.

[What is puzzling is that although Rav Pam was certainly correct about the chicken, which is only forbidden because it absorbed from the liver, the Chavos Daas says this even regarding the liver itself. He cites as his source the Shach in 105, but the Shach there (105:18) clarifies that he says this only regarding blood absorbed in the meat that came from another source, whereas blood from that piece of meat itself – i.e. if it was not salted properly – would forbid other pieces or plates. Seemingly this liver, which was cooked without roasting, is in that category.

The answer may lie in the second Shach (105:21) quoted by the Chavos Daas. There he says that even though usually fatty tastes absorbed in one dry piece can travel to another dry piece through touch, if the bottom piece (or plate) is cold, it does not travel. If so, possibly even blood that originated within the liver itself cannot travel to the plate under it.

The only problem is that the Chavos Daas says that blood is a כל שכן from fatty tastes, and according to the above explanation it is not really a כל שכן, since here the blood originated in the meat and is therefore worse, in one aspect, than fatty taste that came from elsewhere.]

Source: Rabbi Yisroel Reisman, tape on YD 73:6.

Yevamos

Yevamos 121a: Agunah from a Plane Crash

YCLeave a comment

Yevamos 121a: If a man fell into a body of water whose shore can be seen, his wife is permitted to remarry. If the shore cannot be seen, she is forbidden.

יבמות קכא. מים שיש להם סוף אשתו מותרת ושאין להם סוף אשתו אסורה.

Shlomo Anidjar was one of the most respected members of the Chabad community in the French city of Boulogne-Billancourt (a suburb of Paris). At 10:00 PM on June 1, 2009 he was one of the 228 passengers aboard an Air France flight that went missing over the Atlantic Ocean. The Airbus A330-200 plane was last heard from about four hours after taking off from Rio de Janeiro en route to Paris.

Anidjar was 40 years old, and left a wife and 3 children.

The Jewish community planned a memorial ceremony in Paris’s Great Synagogue. Anidjar’s children asked to recite Kaddish for their father, and began sitting shivah together with their mother.

France’s rabbis objected to these signs of mourning expressed soon after the plane went missing, even before the plane’s debris or passengers’ bodies were recovered, and threatened to boycott the ceremony. The rabbis expressed their fear that taking part in the memorial would be perceived as a rabbinical approval that the woman was a widow, while she was in fact considered an agunah.

On June 2, at 3:20 in the afternoon, a Brazilian Air Force jet spotted wreckage and signs of oil, possibly jet fuel, strewn along a 3 mile band 400 miles northeast of Fernando de Noronha Island, near the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago. The sighted wreckage included an aircraft seat, an orange buoy, a barrel, white pieces and electrical conductors. Later more wreckage and some bodies were discovered.

Following the disagreement, Rabbi Yirmiyahu Menachem Cohen, a senior member of the Rabbinical Center of Europe, decided to convene the beis din of Paris to discuss the matter.

The beis din ruled that before sitting shivah, the family should have ensured that the chances of finding survivors were down to zero, but that now that the wreckage had been discovered, they could continue sitting.

The beis din based its ruling on the initial opinion of aviation experts, who ruled that the plane had exploded in the air, based on the radius where the plane’s debris was found.

The halachic ruling also relied on a response written in the past by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer v. 6, Even Haezer 4) in regard to a combat pilot whose plane was hit by a missile and fell into the sea. Rabbi Yosef had said at the time that the explosion of a plane and drowning in the sea were two scenarios from which a person could scarcely escape alive, and that joined together, there was a halachic foundation to release the wife from her agunah status.

Rav Ovadia quotes the Beis Yaakov (9), by the Gaon of Zazmir, who argues that we find similar logic in Kesubos 15a. When a girl was violated in a city in which most people are of good lineage, the Torah would permit her to a kohein, but מעלה עשו ביוחסין – Chazal made an extra stringency and required two majorities: the majority of the city and the majority of the travelers. The two majorities operate similarly to a  ספק ספיקאin which each question has a majority pointing toward leniency – if the man came from the city, chances are he was of good lineage, and even if he was one of the travelers, chances are he was of good lineage.

The Beis Yaakov uses this as a model for the stringency we are discussing – the man who falls into a large body of water where the shore cannot be seen, which is also only a Rabbinic restriction (as evident from the fact that bedieved, if the woman remarried, she is permitted to stay married – Even Hoezer 17:32). Therefore, argues the Beis Yaakov, if there were two majorities – for example, if a man who was very ill and close to death fell into water – his wife is permitted, because probably he died from the illness, and even if not, he probably drowned. Here too, said Rav Ovadia, probably the pilot was killed when his plane exploded, and even if not, he probably drowned in the sea.

Megillah

Megillah 5a: The Baal Korei Who Died

YCLeave a comment

Megillah 5a: Rav said: “When Purim is observed in its regular time, an individual alone may read the Megillah, but when it is observed outside of its regular time, such as when it falls on Shabbos and is pushed back to Friday, one must read the Megillah with a minyan.”

But does this not contradict the following statement of Rav: “When Purim falls on Shabbos, Friday is the regular time.” Actually, Shabbos is the regular time. (Rashi: Because the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah ordained Purim on Shabbos, and it was only a later generation of sages who made the decree not to read the Megillah on Shabbos.) So when it says Friday is the regular time, doesn’t it mean that one does not need a minyan on Friday? – No. it just means that Purim is not pushed back to Thursday.

This Gemara is discussing the case when the 14th of Adar fell on Shabbos, but the Mishnah Berurah (690:61) extends the rule (that when it is not the regular time, we need a minyan) to the case when the 15th of Adar falls on Shabbos and the Megillah is read in a walled city on Friday. 

מגילה ה ע”א. אמר רב: מגילה, בזמנה ־ קורין אותה אפילו ביחיד, שלא בזמנה ־ בעשרה… ומי אמר רב הכי? והאמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב: פורים שחל להיות בשבת ־ ערב שבת זמנם. ־ ערב שבת זמנם? והא שבת זמנם הואִ! אלא לאו הכי קאמר: שלא בזמנם ־ כזמנם, מה זמנם אפילו ביחיד, אף שלא בזמנם ־ אפילו ביחידִ ־ לא… לאפוקי מדרבי וכו’.

שו”ע או”ח תר”צ. מגילה בי”ד ובט”ו צריך לחזור אחר עשרה ואם אי אפשר בעשרה קורים אותה ביחיד. וכתב המ”ב: דהיכא דמתרמי יום ט”ו בשבת דצריכין המוקפין להקדים ולקרותו בע”ש בודאי צריך לקבץ עשרה לקריאתו, ובזה עוד חמיר יותר דאי ליכא עשרה לא יברכו המוקפין עליה.

Once, in Yerushalayim in a year when the 15th of Adar fell on Shabbos, and the Megillah was read on Friday, the baal korei in one particular shul fell suddenly ill after the reading, and died on Friday afternoon. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach paskened that all those who had heard the Megillah from him would have to hear it again. The reason is that the real time for Krias Hamegillah is Shabbos, and Friday is just a replacement for Shabbos. This baal korei, since he did not live to see Shabbos, was not obligated in the mitzvah, and thus was incapable of being “motzi” the listeners in their obligation.

 [The Chazon Ish disagreed with the Mishnah Berurah’s contention that when a walled city pushes back the reading to Friday, they must have a minyan. He argues that since Friday is the day everyone in the world is reading the Megillah, there is enough pirsumei nisa and one doesn’t need a minyan.

But it would seem that in R’ Shlomo Zalman’s case, even the Chazon Ish would agree that the listeners did not fulfill their obligation with the now-deceased baal korei. For even the Chazon Ish agrees that Shabbos is the real time originally ordained for the reading, and Friday is just a replacement for Shabbos. The fact that this replacement time happens to be the time when the rest of the world is laining does not change the fact that it is, after all, just a replacement. And someone who is not obligated in the original day is not obligated in the replacement either.]

Source: Rabbi Aryeh Golovenzitz

Chullin

Chullin 110b: Liver Under Hot Water

YCLeave a comment

Chullin 110b. Abaye said to Rav Safra, “When you go up to Eretz Yisroel, ask them about liver.” He went up and asked Rabbi Zerika, who replied, “I cooked it for Rabbi Ami and he ate it.” He reported back to Abaye, but Abaye said, “I already knew that liver cooked alone is permitted. What I meant to ask was if it is permitted to cook liver with other meat.”

Tosafos quoting Rabbeinu Tam: This Gemara is talking about unsalted liver, but salted liver is like any other meat that was kashered through salting, and one may cook it with other meat.

חולין קי ע”ב: אמר ליה אביי לרב ספרא: כי סלקת להתם בעי מינייהו, כבדא מה אתון ביה? כי סליק, אשכחיה לרב זריקא, אמר ליה: אנא שלקי ליה לרבי אמי ואכלֹ. כי אתא לגביה, אמר ליה: למיסר נפשה לא קא מיבעיא לי, כי קמבעיא לי ־ למיסר חבירתה.

אומר ר״ת דכולה הך שמעתא איירי בכבד שלא נמלח דאי בתר מליחה ושהייה במלח פשיטא דשרי לבשלה בהדי בשר שעל ידי מליחה יצא כל הדם.

שו”ע יו”ד ע”ג ס”א: הכבד יש בו ריבוי דם לפיכך לכתחלה אין לו תקנה לבשלו ע״י מליחה אלא קורעו שתי וערב ומניח חיתוכו למטה וצולהו (שיהא ראוי לאכילה) (או״ה נתיב ט״ו) ואחר כך יכול לבשלו… ובדיעבד מותר אם נתתבשל לבדו בקדירה (בלא צלייה) אבל הקדירה אסורה שפולטת ואינה בולעת ויש מי שאוסר. רמ”א: וכן נוהגין לאסור הכל.

Rabbi Avrohom Pam and his rebbetzin spent a week in Toronto. When they returned, Rabbi Yisroel Reisman came over to visit, and Rav Pam recounted the halachic questions that had been presented to him over the week.

“A lady bought a whole chicken, with the not-yet-kashered liver in a plastic bag inside the cavity of the chicken. She knew she needed to roast the liver, but since it was frozen, she decided to thaw it out by running hot water on it in the kitchen sink, while still in the plastic bag. Then she realized this might be considered cooking…”

“In whose house did this shailah happen?” the Rebbetzin broke in.

“In the house where we were staying,” said Rav Pam.

“So why didn’t they ask me?!” joked the Rebbetzin.

Rav Pam continued, “I was matir it for a combination of two reasons. First of all, pouring (עירוי) only cooks the outermost layer of an item, and here the outermost layer was the plastic bag, so the liver did not get cooked. This reason alone was not sufficient to permit it, because they ran it under the sink for a long time, and some say that with many pourings, the cooking goes deeper than a layer. The second reason is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, brought by the Mechaber in 73:1. The Mechaber that although lechatchilah we follow the opinion of the Rambam and Rif that one must roast the liver, if one followed Rabbeinu Tam and cooked it, even without salting, it is kosher. The Rema says that we are strict even after the fact. But in this case, where we have the first reason too, I was matir it.” 

“If they had asked me, I would have said that too!” exclaimed the Rebbetzin.

Source: Rabbi Yisroel Reisman, tape on YD 73:3-6.

Kiddushin

Kiddushin 80b: The Night Watchman for Yichud

YCLeave a comment

Kiddushin 80b: One woman may be alone with two men. This was only said in the city, but on the road there must be three men, because if there were only two, one of them might need to go off and relieve himself, leaving the other man alone with the woman.

Even Hoezer 22:5: The same applies to night time: there must be three men.

קידושין פ ע”ב: לא יתייחד אדם עם שתי נשים, אבל אשה אחת מתייחדת עם שני אנשיםֹ. ושם בדף פא ע”א: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: ל״ש אלא בעיר, אבל בדרך ־ עד שיהיו שלשה, שמא יצטרך אחד מהם להשתין, ונמצא אחד מתייחד עם הערוה.

שו”ע אה”ע כ”ב ס”ה ברמ”א: וכ״ז בעיר אבל בשדה או בלילה אפילו בעיר בעינן ג׳ (ב״י בשם הראב״ד).

Rabbi Meir Brandsdorfer was once asked to serve as the sole shomer for yichud for a chosson and kallah (following a chupas nidah). He sat learning at a shtender all night long.

Usually, at night we require two shomrim, because one might fall asleep. Here, R’ Meir Brandsdorfer either was not afraid of falling asleep, or else he held that a nap on a shtender would not be considered sleeping for this purpose.

[This depends on how we learn the Raavad, who is the source of the halacha that you need two shomrim at night. The Beis Yosef brings the Raavad as follows:

וכתב הראב”ד בספר בעלי הנפש שי”א דכי אמרינן דאשה מתיחסת עם שני אנשים כשרים ה”מ ביום אבל בלילה לא ישן עמה בבית אחד עד שיהיו שם ג’ אנשים מפני שהוא דומה לדרך דאמרינן לא שנו אלא בעיר אבל בדרך עד שיהיו ג’ שמא יצטרך א’ מהם לנקביו ונמצא זה מתיחד עם הערוה וה”נ חיישינן דילמא אדנאים חד מינייהו אזיל חד ועביד איסורא.

According to this version of the Raavad, he is talking about people who are awake at night, and the fear is that if there is only one shomer, the shomer might fall asleep and the other man might go and commit a sin. Therefore we need two shomrim (three men total), so that the likelihood of them both falling asleep is low.

But in the Sefer Baalei Hanefesh that we have, the girsa is אדנאים חד מינייהו איתער חד ועביד איסורא: “While one is asleep, the other will wake up and commit a sin.” This implies that the case is that they are all sleeping, and the fear is that if there are only two men, one man might wake up and sin. Therefore we require three, so that if one is tempted, he will be afraid to sin lest one of the two shomrim wake up. But if the shomer is trying to stay awake, there is no problem, either because we are not afraid he will fall asleep, or because the temporary dozing of someone trying to stay up all night is not a deep enough sleep to make the other man unafraid of being caught.]

Source: Chukei Chaim, Parshas Bo 5780 (#165)

Pesachim

Pesachim 46b: Making Knaidlach for the Last Day of Pesach

YCLeave a comment

Pesachim 46b: Rabbah said that one who cooks on Yom Tov for the next day does not violate a Torah prohibition because theoretically, guests may come today and eat the food. Although Rabbinically it is prohibited, Chazal made an exception when Yom Tov falls on Friday and one makes an eiruv tavshilin.  

Rema 527:20: One who is fasting on Yom Tov is forbidden to cook for others. R’ Akiva Eiger: This is only when one is abstaining from all food, but if one abstains from a particular food because of a chumra (e.g. kitnios), he is allowed to cook it for others, or even for himself to eat on the following day, since others could eat it today. Maharsham and Chazon Ish disagree with this in the case of kitnios but agree in the case of gebrokts.

פסחים מו ע”ב איתמר, האופה מיום טוב לחול, רב חסדא אמר: לוקה, רבה אמר: אינו לוקה. רב חסדא אמר: לוקה, לא אמרינן הואיל ומיקלעי ליה אורחים חזי ליה. רבה אמר: אינו לוקה, אמרינן הואיל. אמר ליה רבה לרב חסדא: לדידך, דאמרת לא אמרינן הואיל ־ היאך אופין מיום טוב לשבת? אמר ליה: משום עירובי תבשילין. ־ ומשום עירובי תבשילין שרינן איסורא דאורייתא? ־ אמר ליה: מדאורייתא צורכי שבת נעשין ביום טוב, ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה, גזירה שמא יאמרו אופין מיום טוב אף לחול. וכיון דאצרכוה רבנן עירובי תבשילין ־ אית ליה היכירא.

שו”ע או”ח תקכ”ז ס”כ ברמ”א:  ומי שמתענה ביום טוב אסור לבשל לאחרים אפילו לצורך בו ביום דהוי כמי שלא הניח עירוב שאינו מבשל לאחרים (מהרי״ו).

וכתב המ”ב דהאחרונים חולקים על הרמ”א, וכתב ר’ עקיבא איגר (שו”ת א,ה) דאפילו להרמ”א היינו דוקא במי שמתענה אבל מי שנוהג איסור בדבר מסוים מותר לבשל לאחרים האוכלים אותו, או לעצמו על שבת אם אוכל אותו בשבת (כגון אשכנזי בן א”י המבשל קטניות לאחרון של פסח, הואיל וחולים או ספרדים יכולים לאכלו בו ביום(. והמהרש”ם בדעת תורה (תקכז,א) אסר דלא אמרינן הואיל ואי מיקלעי ליה אורחים כיון שמחזיק אותו כאיסור, וגם החזון איש (מט,טז) אסר מטעם אחר משום מוקצה, אבל שניהם כתבו דמותר לבשל מצה שרויה לאחרון של פסח, דאף המחמירים סוברים דמעיקר הדין מותר שהרי באחרון של פסח אוכלים, ולכך מותר לבשל ביו”ט הואיל ואם בא אורח הנוהג היתר היה יכול לאכלו בו ביום.

R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky told the following story about his great-great-great uncle, R’ Eliyahu Schick.

(R’ Eliyahu Schick’s sister was the grandmother of Chaya Shereshevsky, who married R’ Shmuel Hirsch Kamenetsky, R’ Yaakov’s grandfather.)

Once, while R’ Eliyahu was the rav of Derechin, there was a devasting fire, and he went to collect donations to help families rebuild. He came to the town of Smargon, where his cousin by marriage, R’ Leibele Shapiro (also known as R’ Leibele Kovner), who was the rav of the town, accompanied him. When they came before the home of a wealthy Chabad chassid, R’ Leibele told him there was no use going into that house because the owner would not contribute to anything in Derechin, a shtetl known to be a center of misnagdim. R’ Eliyahu himself was also personally considered to be a fervent misnaged, to the extent that Chassidim accused him of deliberately giving a psak to cause them suffering. In the year 1873, when Pesach fell on Shabbos, R’ Eliyahu prohibited the preparation of knaidlach on Friday for the last day of Pesach because he held that one may cook on Yom Tov for use on Shabbos only such food as one may eat on Yom Tov itself. When R’ Eliyahu passed away a year and a half later, the Chassidim contended that he was punished from Heaven because his ruling had prevented them from enjoying knaidlach on the single day out of Pesach when they were allowed to eat them.

R’ Eliyahu said, “I will bet you a ruble for the Volozhin Yeshiva that I can get a donation from him.” He went in and came out with three rubles. “How did you do it?” asked R’ Leibele. “I told him a story about the Alter Rebbe,” said R’ Eliyahu.

R’ Leibele then said, “You gained three rubles, and here is my ruble for Volozhin, but I cannot accompany you any longer because the Torah commands מדבר שקר תרחק.” 

R’ Leibele was a talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner, and his son, R’ Refoel Shapiro, was the Netziv’s son-in-law and successor as rosh yeshiva of Volozhin when it reopened in 1899. R’ Refoel’s son-in-law was R’ Chaim Brisker.

When R’ Leibele was on his deathbed, R’ Yisroel Salanter wanted to visit him, but R’ Leibel refused because he was opposed to the Mussar movement. People said to him, “Is this the time for machlokes?” R’ Leibele replied, “If not now, when? Will I not be going off in a short time to the World of Truth?”

R’ Yisroel Salanter said in his hesped on him, “The posuk in Daniel (8:12) says, ‘Truth will be cast down to the ground.’ What we are doing now is burying truth underground.” The ability to perceive one’s adversary as being truthful – while wrong – because he is consistent in his outlook indicates that R’ Yisroel himself was so unequivocally committed to truth that he had greater esteem for one who was truthful than for one who was in agreement with his Mussar approach.

[R’ Eliyahu evidently held that those who don’t eat gebrokts consider it a real prohibition and therefore cannot take into account the possibility that those who do eat it might show up for a meal – similar to the halacha of kitnios according to the Maharsham.]

Source: Making of a Godol, pages 111-114

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 12a: The Skull Under the Mizbeyach

YCLeave a comment

Sanhedrin 12a: The Sages say that Beis Din should not add an extra month to the year to allow time for tamei people to become clean before Pesach, but rather they should make Pesach with tumah. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds it is better to add the month. And this was the story with Chizkiyah, king of Yehuda: he added a month due to tumah.

Tosafos: What was the tumah in the case of Chizkiyah? The Yerushalmi says that they found the skull of Aravna the Yevusi under the mizbeyach.

סנהדרין יב ע”א: תנו רבנן: אין מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה, רבי יהודה אומר: מעברין. אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בחזקיה מלך יהודה שעיבר את השנה מפני הטומאה. תוס’: ובירושלמי אמר דגולגלתו של ארונה היבוסי מצאו תחת המזבח.

After the shaitel controversy in 2004, Rabbi Ahron Dovid Dunner went to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and asked, “Sometimes it happens that there is a ‘tummel’ and we find out that everyone has been doing something wrong for a long time. Is there a precedent in Chazal for such a thing?” R’ Chaim replied, “The Yerushalmi says that they found a skull buried under the mizbeyach.” That meant all the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash for the last 300 or so years had been invalid and forbidden. You can’t imagine more of an upset than that.

[The Tzion Yerushalayim (on the page of the Yerushalmi Pesachim 64a and Sanhedrin 5b) seems to be bothered by the fact that Har Habayis was built on top of underground domes to prevent any tumah from coming up. This is stated by the Rambam in Hilchos Parah Adumah 2:7:

שכל הר הבית והעזרות תחתיהן היה חלול מפני קבר התהום.

And his source for this is the Mishnah in Parah 3:3.

The Tzion Yerushalayim says that the answer is given by the Mishneh Lamelech on Beis Habechirah 1:13. There the Rambam writes:

המזבח אין עושין אותו אלא בנין אבנים גזית וזה שנאמר בתורה מזבח אדמה תעשה לי שיהיה מחובר באדמה שלא יבנוהו לא על גבי כיפין ולא על גבי מחילות.

“The mizbeyach must be built of hewn stones. And although the Torah says, ‘You shall make Me an altar of earth,’ that does not mean that the actual mizbeyach should be made of earth, only that it must be connected to the earth, not built atop domes or tunnels.”

The source for this Rambam is the Gemara in Zevachim 58a. The Mishneh Lamelech points out that we see here that the mizbeyach was different from all other areas of Har Habayis, and that explains why it was such a problem when they found the skull of Aravna the Yevusi – there was no dome over his skull to block the tumah from rising up.

There are several more difficulties with this story.

  1. The Tzion Yerushalayim ends by asking that Aravna was a non-Jew and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai holds that the graves of non-Jews are not metamei. At the very least, this story should have been brought as a proof against Rabbi Shimon. He leaves this question unanswered.
  2. Why was only the skull of Aravna found? What happened to the rest of his skeleton?
  3. Based on Pesachim 81b, the tzitz atones for tumah of the tehom – tumah that no one knows about. If so, why was most of Klal Yisroel tamei? Before they found the skull, it was tumah of the tehom. After they found it, they removed it!
  4. Why wasn’t the hollow space of the Shisin itself sufficient to block the tumah?
  5. Dovid bought the field from Aravna when he, Aravna, was still alive, so how could he have been buried there? And even if we say that David let Aravna continue to live there until the Beis Hamikdash was built, why would he have been allowed to be buried there, given that they were planning to build the Beis Hamikdash?

In Makos 11a we read the story of how Dovid Hamelech dug the Shisin (the tank under the mizbeyach into which the wine of the nesachim ran). Water from underground began spraying upward in a geyser, and he asked Achisofel whether it was allowed to write the name of Hashem and block the hole. Rashi asks: Achisofel died during the rebellion of Avshalom, three years before Dovid bought the Temple Mount. He answers that many years earlier Dovid had already figured out with Shmuel where the Beis Hamikdash would be, and he dug the Shisin with permission from Aravna.

Accordingly, it may be that Aravna fell into the Shisin, which was already dug in his time, and died. The kohanim in Chizkiyahu’s time perhaps discovered it when they went down to clean the Shisin. The Gemara says (Meilah 11b) that once in 70 years, the young kohanim would go down into the Shisin and clean it out. Maybe this was not yet done regularly during the First Beis Hamikdash era.

The skull had rolled from the main chamber into a drain pipe, where there was no space to block the tumah. But the rest of the skeleton was in the hollow space of the Shisin.

When first discovered, the skull was thought to be Jewish, so the people considered themselves tamei and postponed Pesach. But then someone came forward and told them that it was Aravna.

And regarding the question of tumas ha-tehom, maybe since the skeleton had already been found in the Shisin years before, but was not considered a problem since the hollow space blocked the tumah, the skull found later in the pipe was not considered tehom, since after all someone did know about its body.

Another interesting question: If there is a rule that the mizbeyach must not be built over empty space, then why was it allowed to have the Shisin? The answer may be that only man-made domes are forbidden, but the Shisin was a natural cave, created in the six days of creation (Succah 49a) and all Dovid Hamelech did was clear out the loose dirt and pebbles from it (Rashi Succah 53b).

Today there is a cave under the rock in the Dome of the Rock. Rabbi Leibel Reznick has proposed that the rock, as the original peak of the mountain and the only place there not built on domes, is the place of the mizbeyach. The cave under it would then be the Shisin. There is a large, round marble slab on the floor of the cave, and it is said that this slab covers the entrance to another cave below. The Radbaz writes (Teshuva 691) that he heard from Arabs that the earlier kings wanted to see what was in the cave, so they lowered people down, and they died. (Presumably the people who died were pulled back up, so we won’t have to worry about skulls down there when moshiach comes.)  Therefore they closed off the cave and filled it with dirt, and to this day no one knows what is there.

In 1865 Captain Charles Wilson was sent with the sanction of the British War Department to survey the water supply of Jerusalem. The director of his survey writes that the hole in the bottom of the cave leads to a drain flowing down to Nachal Kidron. The Mishnah (Midos 3:2 and Yuma 5:6) indeed says that the blood flowed down from the base of the mizbeyach into a drain leading to Nachal Kidron.]

Source: Tape by Rabbi Ahron Dovid Dunner; The Holy Temple Revisited by Leibel Reznick p. 113