|
|
|
|
Have a question? Send it in! Questions are answered by Rabbi Bartfeld.
|
|
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
|
|
|
|
|
# 2051 The Chosen One
|
|
|
Q. Re- above question. I once heard in a shiur, that since the Gemorah teaches when a sickness is sent to a person, an oath is made with that sickness so it will not leave the person, only at an appointed time and by an appointed doctor. Therefore Halacha dictates, that if he was chosen and called as a doctor, he can't refuse and ask the patient to call 911 or any other medic. Is that true?
A. Indeed the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 58a) teaches that the sickness is sworn to depart only by the appointed physician, time and medicine. Yerushalmi (Nedorim 4: 2) mentions that "not from all (doctors) does a person merit to be cured."
Therefore, Shvus Yaakov (Y.D. 1: 86) rules in regards to a physician in avelus that he may attend the sick in a case of sakana, even if there are others that can replace him, due to the oath mentioned above, since he may be the only one appointed to cure that illness. (See Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 380: 1, and Sdei Chemed - M. Avelus 44).
Boruch Sheomar (Tefilah p.125) rules that due to the above teachings, a physician that was asked to attend to a particular patient, cannot refuse.
However, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that being called, does not establish at all that he is the chosen physician, and if there are others that can treat him faster or better, or if he is an avel etc.,let the others available medics cure, as they may be the appointed ones.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/13/2019 12:40 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2050 Doctors Orders?
|
|
|
Q. Does Halacha permit a doctor called by one of his patients in the middle of the night for an emergency, to respond to the patient that he should call Hatzalah or 911?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that he may, if it will take him longer to get ready and reach the needed location than it would take Hatzoloh or an ambulance. Very likely he may also not be as well prepared, have with him the necessary medical equipment or the added medical help that could save the life of the patient.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/13/2019 12:38 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2049 The Book on Scraps
|
|
|
Q. If one has pas palter (baked by a Gentile) that will spoil if left until motzoi Yom Kippur (even if frozen), and one does not eat it during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, can one give it to one that does eat pas pelter in those days?
Likewise, if one has chicken leftover from Shabbos Chazon and it will spoil if left for after the Nine Days. can he give it to someone who eats chicken meat on the Nine Days?
A. On question 2022 in regard to permitting someone who is careful to eat only products that contain Chalav Yisrael, to serve to his guest that eat non Chalav-Yisrael pastries and chocolates that have proper Kasher supervision but are not Chalav Yisrael, we wrote; Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that as long as the guest are aware that the food offered to them is not Cholov Yisroel and they usually consume it, there is no Lifnei Iver or Mesayea prohibition involved.
The Rov maintains, that the same will apply to pas pelter for someone who always eats it, or chicken meat for someone who is permitted to consume it during the Nine Days because of health reasons.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 2:00 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2048 Looks Could Kill
|
|
|
Q. Does the issur of looking at the face of a rasha (evil person) include looking at the picture, or only at the person?
A. Talmud (Megila 28a) teaches that Rav Yochanan said it is prohibited to look into the face of an evil person.
Halichos Chaim (2: 362 p. 171) quotes Horav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit'a as answering that there is no prohibition in looking at the picture of a rasha. However, Lehoros Nossan (10: 20) maintains that one should abstain from doing so.
Hegyonei Haparsha (Toldos p. 261) explains that it would depend on the different reasons for this prohibition.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the prohibition does not apply to a picture.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:44 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2047 Counting On Your Chickens
|
|
|
Q. I travel on business often to China, where I visit some companies in different far off cities, that don't have any kind of Jewish communities. I noticed that the life chickens in the market place look different than the ones we are accustomed to see in our countries, and since there is no local shechita, there certainly is no tradition on this birds to be kosher. Can I eat the eggs sold in the supermarkets?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that first you should verify how different this chickens are from the common others, by taking a few pictures and consulting with a reliable Posek familiar with this type of shailes.
You should also find out if this kind of birds is not being consumed in other Asian provinces, where there is a Jewish community that keeps kosher, therefore creating an established "masores" or tradition that would permit it's consumption.
If indeed it is declared to be different, and there is no permitting "masores" for this birds to be found, one should not consume the eggs as the are a "dovor hayotze min hatameh" or a food emanating from a non-kosher source and therefore prohibited. In doubt, one should also abstain.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:35 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2046 Wine And Din
|
|
|
Q. What is Horav Miller's opinion in regards to pasteurized wine. Is it permitted as yain mebushal (cooked wine)?
A. Poskim disagree as to what constitutes yain mevushal. Some maintain that cooked wine was only permitted, because in former times it was uncommon to cook wine (milsa d’lo shechi’ach). However in our days, pasteurization is the norm. Others add that to become mevushal the wine actually has to boil and thus the volume diminished, which is not the case on pasteurized wine cooked under pressure. Moreover, to be considered mevushal, the cooking should cause a noticeable change in the taste, color or aroma of the wine. The process commonly employed today, known as flash pasteurization, is performed in a manner that very quickly heats and then cools the wine, and even connoisseurs debate whether it causes any appreciable effect on the taste of the wine. (Minchas Shlomo 1: 25 quoting Horav Eliashiv zt'l, Ohr Letzion 2; 20; 18, Mincha Yitzchok 7: 61, and others.
However, Igrois Moshe (Y.D. 1: 50), Yabia Omer (Y.D. 8: 15) and others are lenient and the prevalent minhag for many is that pasteurized wine qualifies as mevushal. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l required pasteurization to be at a temperature exceeding 175˚ F - 80 ˚C, while the Tzelemer Rov zt'l insisted on a minimum of 190˚ F - 88 ˚C.
The OU permits wines that undergo flash pasteurization as mevushal or mifustar. STAR-K accepts grape juice pasteurized at least at 165˚ F - 74 ˚C as mevushal.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that a temperature of 180 ˚ F - 82 ˚C is required.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:19 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2045 An Early Mazal Tov?
|
|
|
Q. If one hast to undergo an important medical procedure, it is generally recommended to do it during the month of Adar, since those are days of good mazal. Does that include the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon? Should one have it postponed until later or the second Adar?
A. In question 472 in regard to postponing a court case to the second Adar we wrote: "The Mishna (Meggilah 6b) teaches that besides the reading of the Meggilah and the gifts for the poor, there is no difference between the first and second Adar. Chasam Sofer (O.H. 167) also implies, that besides the exceptions he cites, both months are equal. Nitey Gavriel (Purim 11: 2) in relation to the increase of Simcha and joy inherent in Adar, quotes Rav Tzadok Hacohen zt”l (Likutey Mamorim 16) and Sfas Emes that maintain that the simcha of Adar begins with the first month.
Not all Poskim agree. Sheilas Yaavetz (2: 88) and Teshuvo Meahavo (2: 301) quoting Rashi (Taanis 29a) mention that it applies only to the Adar close to Nisan.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that the court case does not have to be delayed to the second month of Adar."
On question 990 we added: "Derech Sicha, (Miketz p. 188,) Nitey Gavriel, (Purim – Teshuvos 2) et. al., opine that it begins from the first Adar. Nitey Gavriel (ibid. 464) quoting the Munkatcher Rebbe, adds even from Tu Bishvat."
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that a delay would depend on the medical advice received. The Rov maintains that the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar-First, according to some opinions is also preferred and brings good mazal.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 3:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2044 Helping the Troubled Waters
|
|
|
Q. In places like Las Vegas and some counties in California where literally the treated water goes from the toilet to the tap, can you wash netilat yadaim with such water. Even if not contaminated, why should it not be disqualified as water that was used for work (cleaning, washing and drinking from it etc.)?
A. Poskim maintain that if the water was treated and recycled directly into the tap, it would be disqualified for netilas yodaim (Lehoros Nossan 10: 23, Kovetz M'beis Levy 5: 6). However, it is common that the water is reclaimed into a lake, from where it will be extracted for house use.
The above Poskim opine, that since it ends in contact with the ground and is further filtered by it, and then extracted from the underground of the lake, it is considered having gone through a "hamshacha" process, as water for a mikva is transformed by having it run over the ground. This constitutes "ponim chadoshos" or new fresh water and is permitted for netilas yodaim (See Piskei Teshuvos 160: 16: n. 58).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:37 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2043 The Works of Water Works
|
|
|
Q. In some countries the city water is not connected directly to the taps, but is stored first in a water tank usually at the roof of the house. To avoid spilling the water once the tank is full, the water pushes up a floater that turn off the valve for incoming water, (similar to a common toilet). Why is that water not considered as having done work, since it turned off the valve and therefore should not be fit for netilat yadaim?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a explained that the water only caused that no more of it should enter the tank; avoiding doing work is not work. Dovev Meishorim (4: Likutei Teshuvos: 20) adds to the above reason the following two.
1) Only the very last top layer of incoming water that pressed directly on the floater performed work. The other layers of water below are only creating a gromo or an indirect work for achieving the valve closing, and that will not disqualify those waters. Then, the top layer will become annulled on the majority of waters bellow via bitul berov, and all the water will become permitted.
2) The work was done by water that was attached via the still open valve, to the water source. As mentioned above and in Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 160: 5) a mikva or a spring are not disqualified by this kind of water. See also Chashukei Chemed (Chulin 66a) that adds another three reasons.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:36 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2042 You Call That Work?
|
|
|
Q. (See question 2041 above on water that was used to perform work). Why is water that "worked" by turning a water motor, different from any common water whose volume was measured by a water meter. After all the water "worked" by making the meter register the volume that went by, and therefore no measured water anywhere should be kasher even for netilat yadaim?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that since actually one is not interested in the water meter working as he is being charged for the water used, that unwanted performance is not considered work.
(Besides, one can hardly say that the water will be discarded because of this work).
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:32 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2041 Kosher Water Power
|
|
|
Q. I own a water powered motor that I use to open and close the suka roof on Shabbath and Yom Tov. The water used is not wasted, it ends in a pool that we use as a mikva for men, (it is connected to a rainwater bor). Since the water performed work, (moved the motor), is that mikva kasher?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 160: 2) rules that water that was used for performing work (melacha) is disqualified for netilas yodaim, (washing hands for eating bread). The reason that most Poskim quote, is that once the water was used for any kind of work, it is usually discarded and considered unwanted, and therefore unfit for the mitzva. (Mishna Berura ibid. 6).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that indeed, this water would be disqualified for netilas yodaim use.
However, Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 5) maintains that this type of water does not disqualify a mikva or a spring, as long as the water is attached to it, and one can also immerse one's hands in the mikva and comply with netilas yodaim.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/7/2019 3:15 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2040 Learning the Walk Before the Run?
|
|
|
Q. Is one allowed to study other religions for the sole purpose of being able to be mekarev and bring back the ones that fell and converted to them?
A. Rambam (Avoda Zara 2: 2) mentions that "many books were written by idolaters to explain the ways of serving their deities, and Hashem prohibited studying them." However, on the next chapter (3: 2) he rules that Beis Din has to know the ways of the (avoda zara) service, since they would not be able to punish the transgressors, unless they know that it was actually served. Rambam repeats this ruling in H. Sanhedrin (2: 1) "The judges have to understand the emptiness of avoda zara, so they can stand and judge the transgressors."
The above is based on the teaching of the Talmud: (Sanhedrin 68a and Sifrei - Devarim 18: 9) "When you have come to the land Hashem... is giving you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations." meaning that, to do is prohibited, but to learn to understand how degenerate their actions are, and to teach your children, “Do not do such and such, because this is a heathen custom!" is permitted. (Rashi ibid.)
Similarly, Rambam writes that he extensively read all books on these topics, and from them he understood the reasons of mitzvos (Kovetz Tshuvos HoRambam - Igorois to the Sages of Marseille p. 25, See More Nebuchim 3: 29).
Igrois Moshe (Y.D. 2: 53) permits the learning and teaching of ancient religions, when stressing and explaining the fallacies and misconceptions inherent in them. He further explains (Y.D. 2: 110) that studying books of other religions that contain persuasive material, is only permitted to Gedolei Hador in Torah and Heavenly fear, but not to ordinary people, unless they have been properly prepared and edited.
The well researched sefarim and educational material, written by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (The Real Messiah, etc.), Rabbi Michael Skobac (Jews for Judaism - Missionary Impossible, The DaVinci Code), Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz (The Jewish Response to Missionaries) and others, are great examples of the above rulings.
See also questions 1963 and 1964 in regards to learning Greek philosophy.
Horav Shlomo Miller's shlit'a opinion is that it is permitted only when the information learned will be used in proper kiruv need, the reader is well trained and properly prepared and when the idolatry is also ridiculed and disrespected.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:55 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2039 With Gusto or Disgusting?
|
|
|
Q. (see question above) If the majority of people consider the food repugnant, but to this individual it is not, can he eat it or would he transgress on the prohibition of bal teshaktzu?
A. P'ri Chodosh (Y.D. 84: 3) based on the Mishna (Chulin 77a) maintains that a food item that most people find repugnant and repulsive but this particular individual does not, he does not have to follow the usual majority rule, and he is permitted to eat that food. However if the food is detestable for all people and he is the sole exemption, he is prohibited to consume it. The reason being that we then say that his opinion becomes nullified by the rest of the people, and he does transgresses the prohibition of ba'al teshaktzu.
He adds that in the opposite case, when most people do not find the food repulsive, but to his sensitive mind it is, if he eats it, he will transgress that prohibition.
However, P'ri Mrgodim (384: 3) quoting Knesses Hagedola opines that one is prohibited to eat food that most people find repugnant and repulsive, even if he does not, and we do follow majority rule.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if someone suffers from the very highly sensitive and delicate "aninei hadaas" condition, he will transgress this prohibition even if no one else is bothered or repulsed.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2038 No Harm No Foul
|
|
|
Q. Is it permitted to sell or feed someone food that is healthy and not contaminated, but disgusting and loathsome by its origins, if the fellow that eats it is totally unaware of it? (e.g. food that a rodent ate some separate part of it, and was not contaminated, or was kept properly sealed in a freezer where human body parts and similar were also stored etc.).
A. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 116: 6) rules that it is prohibited to consume food and drinks that are disgusting to one. The prohibition is based on the pasuk (Vayikra 11: 43) "Al Teshaktzu - You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping creature that creeps, and you shall not defile yourselves with them."
Poskim disagree whether this prohibition in this case is Biblical (Yereim 73, Ritvo quoting Rema - Makos 16, Beis Yosef Y.D. 116, et. al). While others maintain it is only Rabbinical (Ritvo ibid. Lebush, P'ri Chodosh Y.D. ibid.), and in doubt one may be more lenient.
Daas Kedoshim (Y.D. 15: 2), Imrei Yosher (1: 165), Igros Moshe (Y.D. 1: 31) and others, assert that the prohibition of ba'al teshaktzu applies only if the person consuming the loathsome items is aware of their origin and condition and is therefore affected.
Minchas Yechiel (3: 81) debates whether one is obliged to inform the would be consumer of the origins and history of that food, since after all, if he does not know he does not transgress the prohibition.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that one does not have to inform the receiver, if he is not aware and will not be affected at all.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:36 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2037 Knowledge on the Fruits of Trees for Women
|
|
|
Q. Do women have the minhag of eating fruits on Tu Bishvat as men do (after all it is time dependent)?
A. Nitei Gavriel (Purim 4: 11) quotes Darchei chaim Vesholom (831) and others, that women follow this minhag similarly to their spouses. Minhagim and traditions may not be necessarily be correlated with mitzvos that depend on time.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:10 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2036 Attent to the Tent
|
|
|
Q. Re- questions 2034-35 above. Does a solid tent that meets size requirements and is used during the summer months at a cottage for additional sleeping quarters, require a mezuza? Does it matter if the door is slanted, and not vertical? Should a brocho be recited?
A. See the Poskim opinions in question above. Some Poskim rule that if a proper door with a frame, even a plastic one was installed and the tent will be used for more than thirty days, a brocho should also be recited. (Pischei Sheorim p. 165).
Horav Shlomo Miller's opinion is that a tent if it has a proper frame and it is used for more than thirty days, should have a mezuza placed without a brocho.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 1:33 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2035 Snowed Inn
|
|
|
Q. My kids build almost every year an igloo to play, eat and enjoy there games with their friends. Since we live in Montreal, the igloo stays up for usually 3 months or more. We want to join them for fun this year and offer a kidush for our friends there (making the structure higher and larger). The door is about 1.20 m high. Do we have to or should we place a mezuza? Should we put a wooden frame with a straight lintel? Do we make a bracha? (We are very interested in placing a mezuza, to impress on our not so frum neighbors and their children).
A. Shaarei Hamezuza (4: 4: n. 8) quotes from the Hirsh Chumash that during the forty years the Jewish nation traveled through the desert, they were not ordained to place mezuzos on their tents as they were only a temporary dwelling. Only when they were about to enter Eretz Yisroel, (Devorim 6: 9) the mitzva of mezuza was given to them.
However, Pischei Sheorim (144: p. 165) rules that although a temporary dwelling such as a sukka or a tent does not require a mezuza, if one intends to use it as a habitation unit for thirty days or more, if it fulfills the size requirements (minimum area of 2m. x 2m.with a height of more than 1m.) a mezuza should be installed. Chovas Hador (4: 3: n. 8) maintains that if it was built to stand over seven days it may require a mezuza as temporary stores in a market place do.
The doorpost of an archway that is at least 1m high even if the lintel is not straight requires a mezuza. as does a circular building with a dome or a cone shaped roof on top. (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287: 1, Pischei Sheorim p. 176).
An igloo, as opposed to other temporary tents, may have an additional drawback that it will certainly melt by itself eventually, and in this particular case, it is not used for sleeping.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that an igloo is exempt from mezuza since it is similar to a house on a boat that Shulchan Aruch (286: 11) rules is exempt.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/3/2019 12:55 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2034 Shed Some Light
|
|
|
Q. Does a shed used in the backyard for storing a lawn mower, bicycles, water hoses etc. require a mezuza? Do you say a bracha?
A. Talmud (Yuma 11a) presents different opinions in regard to a beis haotzros or a storage structure if it is liable for mezuzah or exempt.
Poskim disagree as to the resulting Halacha and there are basically three opinions.
Rif, Rosh. Rabbenu Chananel and Shulchan Aruch (286: 1, 2) and many other Poskim rule that one is liable to place a mezuzah on a beis haotzros. R' A. Eiger (66), Piskei Teshuvos (286), Aruch Hashulchan (ibid.) maintain that they mean that one should recite a brocho.
Rambam (H. Mezuzah 6: 7), Ritvo, Rashbo, Meiri (Yuma 11a) and others assert that on is exempt.
Other Poskim opine that a brocho should only be recited when some conditions are met, such as if it is used constantly, or it is next to a house or there is an entry to the storage facility from the house. (See Yibakesh Torah 96, Alei Deshe 6: 7, Kevias Mezuzah Kehilchosso p. 50 and others. See Minchas Yitzchok 10: 96: 2, in regards to a garage).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that a shed requires a mezuzah without a brocho. If it also serves as an entrance or beis shaar to the house, since a door opens from there to the shed directly, a brocho can be recited.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/1/2019 3:29 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2033 Old Wine in New Bottles
|
|
|
Q. Wine decanters have become a popular gift for a Shabbos or Yom Tov table. The reason to use this specialized bottles is to decant an aerate the wine. (Many young wines can be tight or closed on the nose or palate. As the wine is slowly poured from the bottle to the decanter it takes in oxygen, which helps open up the aromas and flavors). These bottles, for aeration purposes usually don't have stoppers or covers, as that would defeat the purpose. What is the amount of time that one can leave the wine in these bottles uncovered and it will not become prohibited as megule or uncovered?
If one covers the opening of the bottle with a fiber or plastic mesh or net, how big can the spaces on the material be so it will not be considered megule?
A. On question 4 regarding a soda can left open in a refrigerator overnight, we wrote; "The prohibition of “Gilui” or uncovered is a rabbinic injunction mentioned in Mishnayot Terumoth 8:4, Talmud Chulin 9b, Avodah Zarah 30, and other places, and was instituted as a protection for fear that a snake drank from the liquid while it was unguarded and cast its venom into it. This prohibition applies to wine, water and milk that were left uncovered without supervision long enough for a snake to come out of a hole nearby, drink from it and return to its hole unobserved. The sages issued this prohibition based on the Biblical command of “Greatly beware for you soul' (Devarim 4:9). The Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) adds that a prohibition instituted because of fear of danger has to be treated more strictly than an ordinary prohibition. Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 35a comments that in our days when snakes are not prevalent in settled areas, this prohibition does not apply anymore. Based on the above, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 116:1, states that: In our days when snakes are uncommon it is permitted”.
However, Pischei Teshuvah (ibid.) quotes the opinion of the Shelah that a careful person should distance himself from them as they (the Gilui prohibitions) are all mentioned in the Tur. He mentions too that the Gaon of Vilnah was extremely cautious on this prohibition.
P'as Hashulchan2:32, adds that they are other hidden reasons to Gilui besides the one quoted in the Talmud. The Be'er Moishe (Rav Moishe Stern) p. 230, mentions that nowadays only “Yechudei Segulah” are stringent on this prohibitions, yet his own mother was very careful not to drink water that was left uncovered all night, and that in Eretz Yisroel in certain places (where snakes are common) the prohibition still applies. In sefer Shaarei Torath Habais p. 313, after mentioning that the Gaon of Vilnah and the Chazon Ish were stringent, and it is indeed a quality of “Chasidut” to do so, however it is not for everyone, and if someone is unaware of the details of this Halacha, he should not be stringent and discard good usable food or drink, because of the inherent prohibition of “B'al Tashchis” (destroying usable items) which is more severe.
It should be mentioned that in regards to kiddush on Shabbat, Mishne Berurah 272:3 mentions that wine that was left uncovered for a long period should not be used for Kidush. Not because of the Gilui prohibition as above, but because it is not anymore of the prime and highest quality of wine that should be used preferably for kiddush." (The difference to what we mentioned above, may be due to the dryness of our wines as opposed to the sweetened sacramental wines common then, in addition to the sulfites, other preservatives and being pasteurized),
Adding to the above, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that the fiber mesh covering the bottle's mouth may have spaces of less than about a millimeter wide. Probably, that would further protect the wine from small flying insects, that are Biblically prohibited
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/1/2019 3:22 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2032 The Fire-Millionaire Questionnaire
|
|
|
Q. Is it true what they say that after suffering a fire one acquires wealth? (Noch a sreifa vert men raich - Yidish).
A. Likute Harim (2: 88) comments on an unusual occurrence. After a fire in which people frequently lost everything they owned, the victims would often eventually become wealthier than before. This odd experience happened often enough for a phrase to be coined. Namely; "Noch a sreifa vert men raich"
or “After suffering a blaze, one acquires wealth."
The Chidushe Harim adressed this strange occurrence of seemingly unrelated events. He also wondered why people don't become wealthy after being victim to a robbery, which could also be a most devastating experience. The answer, he explains, can be deduced from the gemara in Chulin 55b. Therewe find the case of "Tzomko Hareiya" or an animal lung which became dry and shrunken or hardened due to man's actions, such as scaring the animal, is tereifah, but if the same thing happens by heavenly causes such as thunder, it is kosher. He argues that the he same is true regarding the difference between a fire and a robbery. A fire is from heaven. Like a lung that has atrophied, one who experiences can recuperate and sometimes does even better after his convalescence, since he was affected directly by Hashem, and He has great compassion.
However, a robbery, is more complicated. One's assets diminish through other people's interests and intervention. It is therefore rarer for one to recover from theft.
Horav Pinchas MiKoretz, zt"l, explained the above phenomena differently. “It is not by accident that people usually do better after a fire hut not after robbery or the like. It is mainly because a blaze is so devastating and noticeable, the fire and smoke could be seen and felt far and away, calling the attention of many. Numerous people would feel strongly worried and pained for the victims, pray for them and wish them a yeshua. When a tzibur of many are hurting and daven, as when a fire occurs, it becomes a heartfelt prayer offered by the community and makes an indelible impression on high. The yeshua is then prompt to come as opposed to a robbery, that more often that not is done hiddenly. (See Stories of the Daf - Chulin 55, Nechmad Lemareh - Tazria and Siach Sarfei Kodesh)
There are similar sources in the seforim that follow Lubavitch teachings, see Meah Shearim (18: 2) from the Tzemach Tzedek.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a mentioned that the above is indeed a common popular saying and recommended telling it to the victims of fire, to bring comfort and consolation to their suffering.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/1/2019 12:24 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
