|
|
|
|
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
264
265
266
267
268
269
|
|
|
|
|
# 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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2031 Searching For An Intelligence Answer
|
|
|
Q. My ex-yeshiva bochur friend, is a specialized forensic accountant that works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He expertly searches and traces funds that could be used for terrorism purposes or other illegal activities, that include the gathering of intelligence for foreign countries. He wants to know if he ever found in his searches funds that may have been paid to individuals providing illegally intelligence for Israeli institutions, should he abstain from informing and resign his position?
A. As a general rule in regard to cases of mesira and informing, on question 1120 regarding whistle-blowing and reporting violations committed by others, we wrote: "The answer may be complicated because of the many conflicting factors that could be involved. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that when the law requires that the respective authorities be informed, it is a Torah obligation to comply, especially when the welfare and safety of children or abused spouses is at risk, or when other defenseless victims are placed on harm's way."
In our particular case, Igrois Moshe (C.M. 92) debates whether one can accept work as an accountant for the IRS, as he may eventually find someone who is committing crimes of tax evasion and may have to report it to the agency for prosecution. Thus, he may make the perpetrator liable to punishments that surpass and are more severe than those the Torah would ordain.
Horav M. Feinstein zt'l adds that in reality, his work is likely redundant, since if he does not take the position someone else will, and in reality the tax evader probably will not suffer any more, if he takes office or not. Therefore, if there is no additional damage done by him accepting the job, there should be no injunction involved.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that this same argument may apply in our case, permitting the accountant to continue his job at Homeland Security. However, the Rov recommends that due to the complex and intricate nature of this question a competent Rabbi familiar with the case should be consulted.
One could add, that the good done by saving the lives of potential terrorism victims, may vastly surpass other far fetched considerations, that may never pan out and may be anyway handled by others.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/25/2019 2:51 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2030 Just Take a Look
|
|
|
Q. Re- prior question 1985 - You also mentioned that the other side of a mechitza is not part of the shul, and people davening there are not part of the minyan. However, in many shuls men daven there when there is no women and the Rabbis seem to agree. Are they all incorrect?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 55: 18) rules that if some of the minyan's ten participants are inside the shul, while some are in the azarah, they do not complement each other (and there is no minyan). Mishna Berura (52) explains that even if there is a mechitza between them if they see each other they do complement. He adds that it is obvious that the ones who stand on the ezras noshim and there is a mechitza separating them from the rest, but there is a window and they can see each other, they become part of the minyan.
On note 57 he quotes Pri Megadim's opinion, that when the participants see each other, even if they are in two separate houses, they complete together the minyan. Mishna Berura adds that some Poskim disagree, and therefore only when in need you may be lenient.
Poskim also disagree if they have to see each other clearly (Kaf Hachaim 77, Eishel Avraham 195), or it suffices if they can see, albeit not clearly, as through a net like curtain. (Tov Ayin 18: 31).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that it depends as each particular case is different.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/23/2019 11:00 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2029 Silent Partners
|
|
|
Q. On question 1989 you mentioned that" Rema (O.H. 156: 1) rules that Gentiles unlike Jews, who believe and serve G-d, are not proscribed from serving at the same time other gods, since they are not prohibited in believing in "shituf " or the partnership of the Almighty with other so called deities. Therefore, they are not considered idolaters." And that this is also the opinion of many Poskim.
Since they are not considered idolaters, are Christians Halachically allowed to pray to the other deities such as the son and the holy ghost?
A. Horav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt'l in Emes L'Yaakov (Vaeschanan 4: 19) addresses indirectly the question, and explains it by the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ramban.
The Rambam's opinion is that the gods and deities that constitute avoda zarah are only make-belief and only the false fruit of human imagination. They are totally powerless and worthless and therefore the ones who pray and serve them are not only transgressing a prohibition, but also wasting their time and effort.
However, Ramban's opinion in various locations (Vaeschanan 4: 15, Acharei Mois 18: 25, Behaaloscha 11: 16, et. al.) is that indeed Hashem granted powers to each one of those ministers and angels that represent each nation and therefore if they pray to them they have the power to help the people they represent. Still, he writes that those nations should pray to Hashem and it is prohibited for them to pray only to them.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/23/2019 10:46 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2028 Lost on Translation
|
|
|
Q. In the beginning of Devarim is says that Hashem told Moshe to explain the Torah during the last forty days of his life in seventy languages.
Why were they required to hear the Torah in all languages that they probably didn't even know? What was the point to teach them those so many languages, when Torah learning time was of the essence, as Moshe was departing?
A. Our sages teach us that language and communication defines what a human being is, as illustrated by the often quoted targum on (Bereshis 2: 7); And man became a Nefesh Chaya or living soul, that the targum translates as; a communicating soul. Chovas Halevavos (Shaar Habechina) teaches that "the tongue is the pen of the hearth."
Speech is the tool of Creation, as it written; (Bereshis 1: 3) “And Hashem said, Let there be light." The language used teaches us who Hashem is. Talmud (Bava Kama 3: 2) defines a human as "mabeeh," his essence is what he desires and asks and prays for.
Most of the people coming into Eretz Yisroel, were born in the midbor, and had little if any contact with other nations and people. Now they were about to enter a new populated land with thirty-one kingdoms and a cross road to many other nations, and they were likely most unprepared. Not only they did not understand the language those nations spoke, they were not aware of the culture and values they stood for. There was great danger in that encounter, as they could easily be swayed by the new flashy, ostentatious and seemingly pleasant and successful ways of those cultures. Moshe Rabbenu saw as a most essential and crucial task to teach them how the Torah sees and understands each of those relevant new languages and cultures and how to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the encounter with them.
Mishne Torah was not given only to that generation, like the rest of the Torah it is eternal. The way and form it was given, is extremely essential in our days, when we may find ourselves living in countries that contain by the realities of immigration all or most of the seventy languages and cultures in the world.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/23/2019 10:33 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2027 I See The Light
|
|
|
Q. If during Havdala the electric room lights are off, but the people on the corners of the large room can hardly benefit from that light, should they light another candle and repeat the bracha after Havdala?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 298: 4) rules that one does not recite the brocho on the Havdala candle, until he is close enough to benefit from its light. He further explains that it means to be able to tell the difference between the coin of his country and the one from another country. Mishna Berura (ibid. 9) explains that this is equivalent to telling the difference between the nail and the flesh. We do so, since the nail is a siman of brocho, as it keeps growing constantly.
Mishna Berura (297: 9) writes that if he is too far to be able to benefit from the light as above, he should not intent to be yotze with the brocho on the Ner during the Havdala recitation, but rather wait until the end of Havdala, when he is able to come closer and clearly benefit from the light of the candle, and then recite the brocho on it, before looking to his nails.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if all lights are turned off in the room, even if one is not close enough to benefit from the Havdala candle in the ways mentioned above, they still comply with the brocho. The reason being is, explains the Rov, that if that if this is the only light available in the room, one is bound to have some benefit from it.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/23/2019 2:07 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2026 The Smell Test
|
|
|
Q. If many people are present when Havdala is said and it would take a long time, probably more than the time it takes to recite the complete Havdala, for everyone to smell the besamim, what should be done so it will not be a hefsek?
A. Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchoso (60: 7), writes that if many are being yotze with the Havdala, it may not correct to wait until all take a turn and smell the few available besamim, since it would create a great interruption between the brocho on the wine and the rest of Havdala. On note 21 quoting HS'Z Auerbach Zt'l, that he maintains it may not be a hefsek even if the wait is longer than the recitation of the Havdala, and they may also smell after that, without making an additional brocho.
Salmas Chaim (200) maintains that if they listened to the brocho, they do not have to repeat it after the end of Havdala.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim Upoalo (3: p. 511) relates that when there was a large crowd listening to Havdala, the Chofetz Chaim would not recite during Havdala the besamim brocho. He left it for the present to recite the brocho when the besamim came to each of them. (See Piskei Teshuvos 297: 2)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the listeners should smell the spices after the end of Havdala and after reciting then their own brocho.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/23/2019 2:06 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2025 Keep Their Name
|
|
|
Q. (See question 2014 above). Would it be recommended that if the name given to an institution, was given "Leilui Nishmas" of one of his relatives, the donor should agree that at least those names, without any surnames, so anonymity is kept, should be maintained? Would removing their names be considered a prohibited dishonor to their neshamos?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's shlit'a opinion is that indeed one should not remove the names of the neshomos that were and are being honored, especially if they are parents or others that one is obliged to honor.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/20/2019 12:59 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
