|
|
|
|
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
270
271
272
273
|
|
|
|
|
# 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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2024 Clear His Name
|
|
|
Q. Someone donated a large sum to an institution and was therefore granted that his name should be given to it. Years later, the donor decided that he does not want the institution to carry his name anymore and it should be removed. Is he entitled to his request and the institution has to remove his name?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that he should be entitled to his request of name removal. The reason being, since after all he donated the funds and he certainly had in mind that the donation should not be detrimental to him.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/20/2019 12:54 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2023 Play Your Cards Right
|
|
|
Q. (See question 2022 above). Can someone staying in a hotel during Shabbat give the plastic card key for opening the room-door to a friend that uses that card key on Shabbat? The holder of the key uses tape on the lock of his own door, to avoid using the electronic key, since he considers using it as chilul Shabbat. However his friend argues that he knows of Rabbis that permit it. He picked up both keys before the beginning of Shabbat.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that it is the view of most Poskim to prohibit the use of an electronic plastic-card key to open an hotel room door, and it is the accepted minhag of Shomrei Shabbos to avoid it. (See questions 749 and 1329). Therefore, one should not hand over the card key to a friend that will use it. He may be transgressing on the prohibition of Lifnei Iver or being Mesayea (helping) another to transgress a prohibition. He should live the card-key at the desk.
See question 1329 in regards to the muktza prohibition in handling the key.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/20/2019 12:36 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2022 Milk of Human Kindness?
|
|
|
Q. Is it permitted for someone that is careful to eat only products that contain Chalav Yisrael, to serve to his guest that eat non Chalav-Yisrael pastries and chocolates as long as they have proper Kasher supervision? Or since for him it is prohibited food, he may be transgressing on Lifne Iver? (placing a stumbling block before the blind).
A. Poskim disagree if it is permitted for members of different communities such as Ashkenazim and Sefaradim that may maintain different traditions on food prohibitions, such as the sirchos, (scar tissue and strand like adhesions), that develop on the lungs if they can feed or sell the meat prohibited to them to members of the community that permits them. Mabit (1: 21) and K'sav Sofer (Y. D. 77) permit, while Shaar Hamelech (H. Ishus 9: 16) prohibits. Similarly, Yalkut Yosef (Issur Veheter 2: p. 463) presents community disagreement in regards to cheeses made from milk of a particular treif animal. There are similar cases in regards to cooking on Shabbos (Amira Lenochri p. 140) and others. Many Poskim permit.
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 prohibition. The Rov Added that in this particular case there may be additional reasons to be lenient, since the milk is served in a mixture, and it may be only whey or other extracts of milk.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/20/2019 12:34 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2021 Thanks, But No Thanks
|
|
|
Q. In past years, when rainfall has been middling, Rabbanim in Eretz Yisroel (and perhaps other countries) have called for extra tefillos to appeal to Hashem to send rain – so with this year’s surfeit of gishmei brachah, said Israeli Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel, it’s only fitting that Hashem be thanked for the bounty that has helped refill aquifers, streams and even the Kinneret to some extent. He would like to suggest a special day of thanksgiving for the rain that has fallen until now.
What is the Rav's opinion about his suggestion?
A. Talmud Brachos (59b) and Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 221: 1) rule on reciting a special thanksgiving and appreciation brocho when rains come after a drought. Although there are various details when and where this blessing is recited, there is no question that each individual benefiting from the rains is obliged to thank Hashem in his own words, for the great chesed rains represent.
Beer Hatora (Vaera p. 92) and others teach that since the brocho mentions to thank Hashem for every single drop and drop that rains, it is not enough to recite a "brocho k'lalis" on one single occasion, but to constantly and in every day express our thanks. They compare it to the saying of the Sages (Bereshis Rabba 14, Yalkut Tehilim 150) on the last verse of Psalms; "Kol Haneshama" "Let every soul praise Hashem - for every breath and breath we take"
Whether a special day for rain-thanksgiving should be established, when and by who and for whom, is obviously highly controversial. It could be seen by many as a mere political maneuver, especially with the religious history of the Minister suggesting it.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that in times of hoda'a, thanks and praise to Hashem, it may be advisable to avoid organizing public acts that by the very nature of their organization and support, may show and cause further division in our ranks.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/20/2019 11:57 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2020 Pump the Shailah
|
|
|
Q. My one use hand soap pumps which turn the soap in to a foam, on Shabbos?
A. On question 997 regarding the use of liquid soap and soap that changes from liquid to foam on Shabbos, we wrote: "Remoh (O.H. 326: 10) prohibits using solid soap that dissolves into the water used for washing since it involves creating a new presence and this constitutes “nolad,” (born.)
Nolad refers to things that come into existence on Shabbos, for example breaking ice in order to produce water prohibited by the Talmud (Shabbos 51b.) Sefer Hat’rumah and Remoh, (318: 16 – see M”B 320: 35) explain that the reason is creating a new being.
Other Poskim prohibit because of “memachek” or smoothing which is one of the thirty nine melochos or labours forbidden on Shabbos.
Yechave Daas (2:50 ) permits the use of a bar of soap, because the user has no intention of changing anything; he only intends to clean what he is washing. However, Igrois Moshe (O.H. 1: 113) is stringent in the use of even liquid soaps that can be further diluted. Similarly, Rivavos Efraim (8: 154) follows his opinion.
Most Poskim maintain the prohibition on solid bar soaps but permit the use of free flowing liquid soaps, including the foam or bubbles unintentionally created.(Aruch Hashulchan 326: 11, Ketzos Hashulchan 146: 32, Bris Olam – Memachek 5, Beer Moshe 8: 248, Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchaso 14: 16, and 12: 7, et. al.)
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that free flowing or diluted liquid soap is permitted when needed."
However, in regards to soap pumps that are made with the specific intention of pumping out the bottled liquid soap in a foam mode, the opinion of the Rov, is to be stringent, unless it is needed for the ill.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/18/2019 2:47 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2019 A Non-Baruch Bracha?
|
|
|
Q. Can I fullfill my obligation to say a bracha, if I omit the word baruch? Or if I replace baruch with the word mishubach?
(Because the words which baruch (or a word for root brch) is paralleled with in bircas krias shema and nishmas, Also that brch is in a list of words of praise in Kaddish).
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that regardless of the validity of the dikduk and grammar involved is this suggestion, one cannot change the formulation and established wording of a brocho, as our sages teach (Brochos 40b); "whoever alters the 'coin' minted by the Sages (changes the format) of brochos, does not comply with his obligation" (See Rambam, H. Brochos 1: 5, and H. Kerias Shema 1: 7).
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 1/18/2019 9:40 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
