Beitzah

Beitzah 22b: Burning incense in the home

Beitzah 22b: Rabban Gamliel’s family used to burn incense in their homes on Yom Tov, but the Sages prohibited it. This was said regarding giving a good scent to the home, but smoking one’s clothing with incense to make it smell good is forbidden on Yom Tov according to both opinions.

ביצה כב ע”ב: מניחין את המוגמר ביום טוב…וחכמים אוסרין… אמר רב אסי: מחלוקת להריח, אבל לגמר ־ אסור.

Rabbi Nissan Shalomayev, Rav of the Bucharian community in Hillcrest was asked whether it is allowed to use the plant called esfand to ward off the evil eye, as practiced in some Bucharian Jewish households. To use esfand, the seeds are heated in a pan until they begin to produce smoke. One then circles this smoke around the head of a person while reciting an ancient mantra. After this, the smoke is taken throughout the different parts of the house to allegedly fight off the evil eye.

Rabbi Shalomayev researched the matter and found that this ritual is derived from the Zoroastrian pagan religion. Today, many Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries like India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran use this plant, particularly for removing the evil eye from children, newborns, mothers, and those returning from funerals. In many of these countries, one can find an espandi (one performing the esfand ritual) selling his services on the streets.

Even if the people burning the esfand are just doing it for the good smell, it is forbidden as the Shulchan Aruch says, “There are some who forbid burning a good-smelling spice in the house, unless it is done to counteract a bad odor.” (Yoreh Deah 179:18) The Shach explains that the reason is because it appears as if he is burning the incense to a demon.

Source: https://bukharianjewishlink.com/index.php/rabbi-s-thoughts/5436-using-ispandud-esfand-plant-to-remove-the-evil-eye

[The question is that we indeed find in our Gemara that it was common practice to burn spices (mugmar) in the house for their fragrant smell. The Minchas Yitzchok (4:86) answers that when people are home, it is permitted because everyone sees that he is perfuming the house for the people, not for a demon. The Shulchan Aruch only means to forbid it at a time when no one is home.

Does this mean that burning esfand is allowed when people are home? No. It may be that esfand is different from mugmar, because it is known in those countries to be used to repel evil eye or demons. Mugmar refers to other spices like levonah that were never used in any idolatrous ritual.]

Bava Basra

Bava Basra 21a: Denying a rabbi one of his privileges

Bava Basra 21a: If a new children’s rebbe comes to town who can teach better than the current rebbe, we fire the current rebbe and replace him with the new one.

Rema Yoreh Deah 245:22: This is only true of a children’s rebbe, but if someone has a chazaka to be the rav of a town, and a greater rav moves in, we do not replace him.

בבא בתרא כא ע”א: ואמר רבא: האי מקרי ינוקי דגריס, ואיכא אחרינא דגריס טפי מיניה ־ לא מסלקינן ליה, דלמא אתי לאיתרשולי. רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר: כ״ש דגריס טפי, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

יו”ד רמ”ה, כב ברמ”א: מי שהוחזק לרב בעיר אפילו החזיק בעצמו באיזה שררה אין להורידו מגדולתו אע״פ שבא לשם אחר גדול ממנו (ריב״ש סימן רע״א).

In 1966, Harav Moshe Feinstein received a shailah from Yitzchak Pfizer, the president of Young Israel of Oceanside. The custom in that shul was that anyone getting an aliyah on Shabbos or Yom Tov morning would walk down from the bima, go to the rabbi’s seat and get a bracha of yasher koach from the rabbi. But there were a few people who didn’t like this custom and decided to go straight to their seats after their aliyah, because they didn’t approve of the rabbi or didn’t feel he was deserving of such an honor. The shul president asked Reb Moshe what to do about these individuals.

Reb Moshe responded that it is forbidden to discontinue such a custom without permission from the rabbi, and as long as the custom is in effect, no one may violate it. It’s like a monetary obligation that everyone in the kehilah has accepted upon themselves.

As proof, he brings the Yerushalmi at the end of Horayos (19b), cited by the Gra in his comment on Yoreh Deah 245:22 (number 37 in the Gra’s comments). The Yerushalmi says that there were two families, the family of Bar Hoshia and the family of Bar Pazi, who used to go and greet the Nasi every day. The Bar Hoshia family went in first because they were more respectable. Then the Bar Pazi family married into the Nasi’s family, and they felt that from now on, they should go first. They came and they asked Rav Ami what to do. Rav Ami replied based on a pasuk (Shemos 26:30), “And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its law.” Is there then a law for wood? – This means that a board that was placed on the north side should always be placed on the north side, and a board that was placed on the south side should always be placed on the south side. In the same way, the family who was accustomed to be the first to greet the Nasi retains that right as a chazaka.

This relates to the Rema in that same place, who says that when someone has a chazaka to be the rav of a town, the kehilah may not fire him (unless he was hired on contract for a specific amount of time), even if a greater rabbi comes to town. Rav Moshe viewed denial of a privilege to the rav as if it were a partial firing of the rav, taking away something that he has a chazaka to receive. Besides, even a regular local custom should not be violated, and certainly not this one, which involves respect for the rav and, by extension, respect for all talmidei chachomim and Torah learners.

Therefore, Reb Moshe ruled that those individuals who refused to comply with the custom are not allowed to receive an aliyah. He ended with his hopes that when everyone acts according to halacha, there should be peace in Oceanside.

Source: Igros Moshe YD 2:99

Yuma

Yuma 85a: Fighting a war on Shabbos

Yuma 85a: Rabbi Yishmoel, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah were walking on the road, and Levi the Sadar and Rabbi Yishmoel the son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah were following them, and the following question was asked of them: How do we know that danger to life overrides Shabbos? [Each sage went on to offer a drasha, but all agreed on the halacha itself.]

יומא פה ע”א: וכבר היה רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה מהלכין בדרך, ולוי הסדר ורבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מהלכין אחריהן. נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם: מניין לפקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת?

In the First Book of Maccabees 2:31-41, we read:

The question is: why didn’t those thousand Jews defend themselves? How could it be that these kedoshim, who were so moser nefesh for the Torah, were not aware of the halacha, universally agreed upon in the Gemara, that danger to life overrides Shabbos?

The answer is that this was a time of shmad. The Gemara says in Sanhedrin 74a: Rabbi Yochanan said that this whole rule – that danger to life overrides all mitzvos except for three – was only said when it is not a time of shmad, but at a time of shmad, even a small mitzvah takes precedence over life. This is provided, of course, that the gentile’s intent is to force the Jew to transgress. If the gentile’s intent is for his own convenience (e.g. he orders the Jew to cook a meal for him on Shabbos), then even during a time of shmad the Jew should obey.

The Jews in Matisyahu’s time held that when the Greeks attacked them on Shabbos, their intent was to force the Jews to violate Shabbos. The Greeks figured that they would score a victory either way. If the Jews refused to defend themselves, they would slaughter them and get rid of these stubborn religious people. If the Jews did defend themselves on Shabbos, they would be making them violate Shabbos.

Matisyahu agreed to this argument in principle, but said, “If we don’t fight back, they will soon destroy us from the earth.” In other words, he argued that although in a time of shmad, any mitzvah takes precedence over life, danger to the entire Jewish people is different. This is the same argument that obligated Esther to go to Achashveirosh willingly, committing an aveirah for the sake of saving the Jewish people. (See Noda Biyehuda Yoreh Deah 154)

[This is how it sounds from the words of the Book of Maccabees, but Matisyahu may have also argued that the Greeks attacked on Shabbos solely for their own convenience. They figured that the Jews would not defend themselves, so this would be an easy win for them.]

Avodah Zarah

Avodah Zarah 34a: Is Corelle glass or ceramic?

Avodah Zarah 34a: The Torah testifies that a ceramic vessel absorbs the taste of the food cooked in it, and can never be kashered and cleansed from that taste.

Orach Chaim 451:26: Glass vessels, even if food was kept in them long term, or if they were used with hot food, do not require any kashering, because they do not absorb taste; it is enough to wash them. Rema: But some are strict and say that glass vessels do absorb and cannot be kashered, and this is the custom in Germany and these countries.

ע”ז לד ע”א: התורה העידה על כלי חרס שאינו יוצא מידי דופנו לעולם.

שו”ע או”ח תנ”א, כ”ו: כלי זכוכית אפי׳ מכניסן לקיום ואפילו משתמש בהם בחמין א״צ שום הכשר שאינם בולעים ובשטיפה בעלמא סגי להו: הגה ויש מחמירין ואומרים דכלי זכוכית אפילו הגעלה לא מהני להו וכן המנהג באשכנז ובמדינות אלו (סמ״ק ואגור).

A young man about 26 years old came to Rabbi Yisroel Belsky and asked, “Does Corelle absorb like glass or like ceramic?”

Rav Belsky replied, “Corelle is about 88% glass and about 12% ceramic; the company doesn’t disclose the exact composition. But the Rema says at the end of siman 451 that Ashkenazic custom is to consider glass like ceramic, which absorbs non-kosher taste and cannot be kashered. So no matter what Corelle is, you should be strict.

“But,” Rav Belsky continued, “I gather from your question that you must have looked at the Mishnah Berurah, and you saw that he says that in cases of loss one may rely on the Mechaber who says that glass doesn’t absorb taste at all. And your case is a case of loss.”

“That’s right, that was my shailah,” said the young man.

“Okay, then,” said Rav Belsky, “I’ll answer your shailah, but I have something very important to tell you. First and foremost, I want to give you a bracha that every Corelle dish that you have should be broken and smashed and end up in the garbage can! Not even one should be left over as a zeicher. And you should buy a new set, and that set should also be broken and smashed!”

The young man looked puzzled.

“Listen to me,” said Rav Belsky. “When you say this is a case of loss, you mean that your wife got into a big fight with you, because a Corelle plate somehow became treif in your home, and both of you are very angry. Because if that plate gets thrown out, the set will be incomplete. Is this true?”

“Yes,” the young man admitted.

“You want to have a family with children, who will fill the house with laughter and happiness? So I’m giving you a blessing that you should have children. And children love to break dishes. The Gemara says in Yuma 78b that it is normal for children to break dishes – that is the healthy way for them to grow, and if they don’t, it must be that their parents terrorize them too much. There is too much pressure and strictness in the home. A child growing up in such a house will be a very unhappy child, who will have problems later in life. So you want your children to break the dishes. All your dishes will eventually get broken. Throw away this dish, and when your kids break dishes, give them a kiss and tell them it’s nothing, tell your wife it’s nothing, and tell her that you’ll buy her a new set of Corelle, and another new set after that. Don’t make a problem over a dish and don’t have shailos. You should have so much happiness in your house, the kids should jump all over the place and break the furniture.”

The young man remarked, “I’m walking away from this conversation a wise person. What I’ve learned in the last couple of minutes is more valuable to me than anything I’ve ever learned before.”

Source: Audio shiur on chinuch by Rav Belsky

Yevamos

Yevamos 97b: Surrogacy in Halacha

Yevamos 97b: If twin boys were in their mother’s womb and she converted to Judaism, and the twins grew up and married wives, and one died, the other need not do chalitzah or yibum, but he is forbidden  by the Torah to take his brother’s wife.

The Nimukei Yosef (Yevamos 3b in the Rif’s page numbering) implies that they are only forbidden to take each other’s wives in the case of twins, but if a woman converted during pregnancy, had a baby, and then became pregnant again as a Jew and had a second baby, they would be allowed to take each other’s wives.

The Shach (Yoreh Deah 269:6) rules in accordance with the Nimukei Yosef. 

יבמות צז ע”ב: שני אחים תאומים גרים, וכן משוחררים ־ לא חולצין ולא מייבמין, ואין חייבין משום אשת אחֹ. היתה הורתן שלא בקדושה ולידתן בקדושה ־ לא חולצין ולא מייבמין, אבל חייבין משום אשת אחֹ.

נימוקי יוסף ג ע”ב בדפי הרי”ף: אם נשא אשת אחיו או גר או עבד אינו חייב משום אשת אח אפילו היו לו בנים לאחיו ממנה כיון שהיתה הורתן ולידתן שלא בקדושה אבל היכא דהוו תאומים והיתה לידתן בקדושה חייבין משום אחותו ואשת אח ומשום דדמו לאחין מן האם ולא מן האב לכך אין מיבמין.

The Torah tells us, “And the children of Shimon were Yemuel, Yamin, Ohad, Yachin and Tzochar, and Shaul the son of the Canaanite woman.” (Bereishis 46:10) Rashi explains that “the Canaanite woman” refers to Dinah, who was taken captive by the Canaanite prince Sh’chem.

The commentators all ask: How could Shimon marry his full sister Dinah? True, the Torah had not been given yet, but even a non-Jew is forbidden to marry his sister, as long as they share a mother!

Rabbi Avrohom Tzvi Kamai zt”l hy”d, the last rav of Mir, answered as follows. The Torah describes Dinah’s birth: “And after that, she [Leah] gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.” (Bereishis 30:21)

The Gemara comments: After what? Rav said: After Leah judged herself and said: Twelve tribes will be born to Yaakov. Six have already come from me, and four from the maidservants – that makes ten. If this one is a boy, my sister Rochel will not even be equal to the maidservants. Immediately, the fetus became a daughter. (Berachos 60a)

The Targum Yonasan tells the story slightly differently. It’s not that the fetus was transformed from a son into a daughter, but rather Yosef was originally in Leah’s womb, while Dinah was in Rochel’s womb. The babies were miraculously switched, and Leah gave birth to Dinah.

According to this, Shimon’s conception was from Leah, while Dinah’s conception was from Rochel. At  conception, they did not share a mother, only a father, and a non-Jew is allowed to marry his paternal sister. True, at birth they did share a mother. But we see from the Nimukei Yosef and the Shach that birth from the same mother is not enough to make people siblings. They must also have been conceived by the same mother. 

Source: Mishulchan R’ Eliyahu Boruch, Vayigash

[The Nimukei Yosef does not explain why twins should be different. In the case where one fetus underwent geirus inside his mother, and thus is a ger, and the second baby was conceived after his mother’s geirus and is thus not a ger, they are permitted (on a Torah level) to take each other’s wives. If so, twins who underwent geirus in their mother’s womb should be the same. Since they were conceived as non-Jews, they are unrelated to each other.]   

Eiruvin

Eiruvin 55b: Being discreet about the mikvah

Eiruvin 55b: Those who live in huts are as if they live in graves, and regarding their daughters it is written, “Cursed is he who lies with an animal.” Why? Because they notice when their neighbors go to the mikvah.

Hagahos Ashri, quoting Agudah: Based on this, women have the custom to be discreet on the night of their immersion, and are careful not to go in a noticeable manner.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 198:48, Rema: Some have written that a woman must be discreet on the night of her immersion, and this is indeed the custom of women, to conceal the fact that they are going to the mikvah that night, not to go noticeably or in front of others, so that people should not notice. And whoever does not do so – regarding her it says, “Cursed is he who lies with an animal.”

עירובין נה ע”ב אליעזר איש ביריא אומר: יושבי צריפין כיושבי קברים, ועל בנותיהם הוא אומר (דברים כ״ז) ארור שכב עם כל בהמה. מאי טעמא? וכו’ רבי יוחנן אמר: מפני שמרגישין זה לזה בטבילה. וכתב בהגהות אשרי שם ד”ה יושבי כו’. ונ”ל בשביל זה נהגו הנשים להיות צנועות בליל טבילתן שלא לילך במהומה, אגודה.

רמ”א יו”ד קצ”ח סמ”ח יש שכתבו שיש לאשה להיות צנועה בליל טבילתה וכן נהגו הנשים להסתיר ליל טבילתן שלא לילך במהומה או בפני הבריות שלא ירגישו בהן בני אדם ומי שאינה עושה כן נאמר עליה ארור שוכב עם בהמה.

In the town of Szerdahely, Hungary, there was a woman who operated a small store. Whenever she went to the mikvah, she would have to close the store early, and she feared people would notice. So she asked Rabbi Yehuda Aszod (known as the Mahari Aszod), the rav of the town and one of the gedolei hador, what to do. He recommended that she delay her immersion until Friday night.

Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, the Shevet Halevi, quotes this ruling and concurs, but then he comments: “However, when a young couple eats supper at the home of her parents, the wife should not delay going to the mikvah out of fear that the parents might notice. They should just be as quiet as possible about it.”  

The ruling of the Mahari Aszod seems to support this too, because we see that he recommended that the woman delay her immersion until Friday night. Going to the mikvah on a Friday night would be very noticeable to her children, yet he permitted it. However, we don’t know the situation there: perhaps she had no children, or had only small children who would not notice.

We can also bring proof to Rav Wosner from the Gemara itself. It says that those who dwell in huts notice when their neighbors go to the mikvah, because the huts are so close together. If the obligation to be discreet applies to family members too, then even people who live in mansions, with plenty of space between them and their neighbors, might be noticed by their family when they go out at night at an unusual time. Why is living in huts worse? Clearly, family members are different.

As the reason why family members are different, we can speculate:

1) Perhaps it is because Chazal understood that if they imposed such a high level of secrecy on going to the mikvah, some women (those with older children, or those living with parents) would never go. The story of the Mahari Aszod illustrates that secrecy overrides tevilah in its proper time, but it does not override tevilah altogether.

2) It’s also possible that with family members, there is some benefit in them knowing about the mikvah. Parents of the husband or wife, such as in Rav Wosner’s case, are pleased to know that their child has a happy marriage. And children need to know that they live in a solid home where their parents love each other. Of course, this doesn’t mean they should be told about it as a first choice, but in a case where there is a possibility that they may find out, we don’t delay the tevilah. On the other hand, when people outside the home may find out, we do delay it, since there is nothing positive about that.

Bava Metzia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Mayim Chaim pp. 152-153

Shevuos

Shevuos 35b: A prefix or a suffix?

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

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

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

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

Nedarim

Nedarim 27a: A vow taken under duress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the Ramban on Vayikra 22:18 says:

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

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

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

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

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

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 6b: Paskening on a theoretical question

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.]