|
|
|
|
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
274
275
276
277
|
|
|
|
|
# 1930 Take The Tallis Treat?
|
|
|
Q. I traveled to be at my future son-in law's aufruf. When I came to the shul I realized that I did not have my tallis with me. I was unable to ask someone to lend me one, but I found someones weekday tallis. Since I would not have been able to come after Shabbos to fold it as it was, can I use it and fold it back on Shabbos? If this happens to be a rather new tallis with foldings clearly marked, is it also permitted?
A. Poskim disagree if one is permitted to fold a tallis on Shabbos after the end of davening.
Shulchan Aruch (O. H. 302: 2) rules that folding a tallis when not on the original creases is permitted
Mishna Berura (ibid. 19) writes that although later day Poskim agree with the Shulchan Aruch “he who wishes to be more stringent and not fold at all, is certainly better.” Piskei Teshuvos (392 n.102) quotes a list of Poskim that maintain it is better not to folded at all.
However, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a pointed out that the very hetter or permit to use someones tallis without his permission, which is based on the principle of "nicho lei leinish lemeavad mitzva bememonei" or a person is pleased and consents when someone complies with a mitzva, by using his property, is not that clear cut and dry, as a number of limiting issues may be involved.
a) Mekor Chaim and Eishel Avrohom opine that it may not apply to mitzvos that are not obligatory, such as wearing a tallis, since one may well daven without one, and besides he is already complying with the mitzva by using a tallis kotton.
b) Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 14: 4) and many Poskim maintain that the tallis has to be returned in the exact condition one found it, and that may not be always possible or doable. Mishna Berura (ibid. 15) indeed addresses the issue as to what to do on Shabbos. He indeed mentions that on Shabbos, one should return after folding it, but not in its original creases. Then quotes Magen Avraham who is lenient and says he may not folded at all.
c) Aruch Hashulchan (ibid.) and others assert that in our days when hygiene is a great concern, people are more uneasy and uncomfortable when others use their personal items. This especially applies to clothing such as a tallis that people may wear directly over their heads (when sweating). Although, one may reason that maybe only a minority of people would mind, still Shulchan Aruch Horav affirms that we do not follow majority rules when dealing with others money or property. Thus one should assume that the owner of the tallis could be one of the uneasy and disagreeable minority, and using his tallis without permission would constitute an act of stealing. (See Piskei Teshuvos ibid. n.67).
Therefore the Rov recommends that one, visiting another shul on Shabbos, should make every effort to ask someone to lend him a weekday tallis, if he forgot to bring his, and not take one without permission.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/18/2018 11:16 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1929 Thought For Food
|
|
|
Q. I have been earning some extra money being an Uber Eats driver (it's like a taxi that picks up food from restaurants that don't normally deliver, and deliver the food to customers). Not long ago, as I was driving a food order to its destination, I got into a small accident. Nothing serious but it made the delivery very late, and the food was cold. Needless to say the customer was unhappy. My question is, what was the right course of action? Am I considered a shomer sachar over the food, since I was being paid to deliver it, and ostensibly look after it until the delivery? If so, would the fact that I got into an accident that was not my fault be an oyness, thus making me patur?
Thank you.
A. Assuming that you are delivering food from a non- kosher restaurant to Gentile clients, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that you would likely be subject to "dinah demalchusa" or the law of the land. Most likely the contract you signed when you you became an Uber Eats driver, contains clauses and guidelines that would indicate the process to follow in your case or similar and that is what you have to conform to as having accepted it.
The same may apply even when delivering food from a kosher restaurant to Jewish clients, as both parties accepted that contract and its ramifications.
On the unlikely case that no contract was signed, and you could not settle between you your differences, you may have to take your case to a local beis din and all parties will have to present their case for beis din to decide. However, usually there is a contract is between Uber Eats and the driver.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/16/2018 2:48 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1928 An Informed "Informing" Decision
|
|
|
Q. A landlord has a tenant renting part of his house, and he seems to be abusing his wife or his children, as he can hear or witness. Does he have an obligation to report to the respective authorities?
If the case is already in the hands of domestic violence inspectors, does he have to report to them when questioned?
A. Question 1120 reads: "I heard its a sin from a Jew to tell on another Jew. Is this right? What if a Jew commits a serious crime to another Jew?. Regardless, of religion, its moral and ethical to report any crime to the police no matter the nature of it or if its from a Jew to another Jew."
To what we answered: "The answer is 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.
Sometimes, he suggested, when no immediate danger is expected, it may be wiser to approach the perpetrator first and warn him that if the wrongs he is committing do not stop at once and the victims offered compensation, he will be reported to the authorities. It may be proper also to first inform the parties affected, when not aware of the wrongs committed against them, such as his uninformed employer or neighbours etc. that someone is stealing or harming them, and let them come to terms with the culprit.
As mentioned before, cases differ, and besides the important principle of not becoming a “moiser” or informer, various others, equally or more crucial rules, may also be at play. Therefore, the Rov recommends when it is not an emergency, to consult first with a competent Halacha authority, before taking any action.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/16/2018 2:46 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1927 Eviction Contradiction
|
|
|
Q. Can a Shomer Torah landlord expel a similar tenant from his rental property for defaulting in rent payments by following the law of the land and applying for an eviction ruling enacted by a law officer, or does he have to refer to a Beis Din first in order to remove him.
A. On question 1068 regarding the retrieval of a rent deposit from a landlord who is unlawfully keeping it, we wrote: "Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that you do not need permission from a Beis Din to lodge a complain for redress at the Landlord and Tenant Board or its equivalent."
Similarly in our case, since there is no disagreement that the rent is owed by the tenant the landlord may follow the law of the land and have the tenant evicted.
On the above question the Rov suggested "You may also want to approach the landlord’s Rov at the shul where he davens, he may be able to solve the problem by just speaking with him." If that can work in your case, it is advisable to give it a try.
The Rov also pointed out, that if the tenant is indeed a needy pauper and requires tzedaka, the landlord may be the first one who is obliged to help him, as the mitzva landed in his camp. This being similar to hashavas aveida or the return of a lost item to its owner, that the finder is obliged to do.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/16/2018 10:45 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1926 Paper Bag Recycling?
|
|
|
Q. When you use a paper bag to double enclose food that you are warming in a non- kosher microwave, can it be reused again? How many Times?
What happens if drops of condensation fall on the paper bag?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if the outer paper o plastic bag was not made wet by any condensation it can be reused repeatedly. If it was made wet by condensation it should be replaced.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/13/2018 7:23 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1925 Giving a Hand
|
|
|
Q. A non-Jewish caregiver who needed to cook the food for a patient, could not wait any longer for a family member to turn on the stove, so the caregiver took the hand of her client and pushed it to turn on the stove. Is this bishul akum? Can the food be used? Are the utensils still kosher?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if the caregiver is trusted in general with other issues of kashrus including meat and milk separation (There may be a recording camera available), one can be lenient in regards to the food in case of need and more so after the fact on the utensils.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/12/2018 11:08 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1924 Nothing is for Free
|
|
|
Q. Re- question (1923) above in regards to the Chavos Yair ruling that when wine is gifted one should rather use his own wine for kiddush since it was paid for. This is surprising since after all the wine was given as a gift as a recognition for being invited, so the host actually paid in food given to the guest for that wine? That may be true also in regards to the tallis gifted, it may be in repayment for a favor done or to be done.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if indeed that is the case, it would be considered as having paid for the mitzva item. The Rov stressed the need to personally engage in the compliance of the mitzvos
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/11/2018 11:56 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1923 Get a Gift?
|
|
|
Q. I was given as a gift a beautiful tallis, as far as kashruth goes, it is equal to the one I bought for myself. Is it better or more mehudar to continue using the one I have since I paid for it and as we know one should pay for a mitzva, or better use the new one since it looks beautiful?
A. Chaye Adam (68: 16) rules that one should not comply with a mitzva for free, but rather pay for it. As King David said to Aravnah, "No; for I will only buy it from you at a price; so that I will not offer to the Hashem my G-d burnt-offerings which I had received for nothing." (Shmuel II -24: 24). He quotes the Zohar (Terumah) who is very stringent in this principle, and warns that a spirit of impurity rides with free gifts.
Chavos Yair (232) asserts that if someone received a gift of wine for kiddush or the four sedder cups, if there is no hard feelings or embarrassment involved, he should use his own paid for wine, even if the gifted wine is better.
Similarly Mishne Berura (584: 8) quoting Mateh Ephraim rules that one should strive to receive an Aliyah LaTorah during the Days of Judgment, even if he has to pay for it, as it is better a mitzva that one paid for than a free one.
Aruch Hashulchan (O.H. 53: 23) directs to rather hire and pay a shaliach tzibur than to avail one for free.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that one should keep the gifted tallis for Shabbos use, since in addition to the hidur mitzva of wearing a beautiful tallis, he will comply with the mitzva of kavod and honor of Shabbos, likely also heightening and enhancing the good feelings of his bestower.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/11/2018 11:51 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1922 Listen To Reason or Reason To Listen
|
|
|
Q. Re- question 1904 on the need to recite Birchas Hatorah before listening to a tape of Mussar. You mentioned that many Poskim differentiate between merely thinking and actually listening to words of Torah, as Shaarei Teshuva (ibid. 3) explains, since "shomea keone" or listening is tantamount to answering, will apply.
This is surprising since we usually don't consider any bracha, tefilah, reading of the Torah or the Megilah, said via a microphone or telephone as viable to be yotze as shomea keone. Why should this be any different?
A. It is mentioned in the name of Horav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit'a, that the mitzva of learning Torah is different from the compliance of other verbal mitzvos. On those mitzvos the essence of the act is the praising of Hashem, and it has to be done by a personal verbal expression: therefore "Shomea Keone" is essential and that cannot be achieved unless one hears a human voice.
However, learning Torah,, is essentially a mental learning experience and albeit words should be also expressed, listening to a tape or any other artificial source would suffice.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/11/2018 11:28 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1921 Thanks For...?
|
|
|
Q. When making a seudas hodoa for thanking G-d for the miracle of His great salvation, does one have to disclose to the guest partaking at the seuda, the reason for that act?
A. Mishna Berura (218: 32) mentions that even if there was no open miracle in the salvation, since one was in real danger he has to express his thanks and recognition to Hashem. He adds that one should give tzedaka to those who learn Torah and express that this should be in place of the korban todah one was liable to bring to the Beis Hamikdosh. Piskei Teshuvos (218: 11) quotes Chavas Yoir 70, and other sources for the tradition on setting a seudas hodoyo and there relate, tell and express his thanks and acknowledgment to Hashem's compassion and deliverance. He also adds that if there are reasons why he does not want to divulge publicly what happened to him, he does not need to.
Similarly, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that it is most important to express at the banquet, meal or kiddush, one's open thanks to Hashem for all His gifts, deliverance and salvation. When possible one should explain the reason for the act, in order to properly thank Hashem for His benevolence.
However, if there are reasons not to divulge what happened, one can celebrate the seuda without explaining the actual reason why it is being done.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/11/2018 11:16 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1920 Pop The Shailah?
|
|
|
Hello Rav,
Q. At work they make microwave popcorn (that has a hechtsher) in the non-kosher communal microwave. It is sealed in its bag the whole time it is cooking. Is this permissible to eat it terms of being cooked in the microwave? Additionally, would it be a bishul akum concern or would popcorn be a food that does not fall into that issue because its not "fit for a kings table"?
thanks so much!
A. On question 322 in regards to using a non-kosher microwave (in prison) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a suggested to double wrap it if possible, if in need one layer suffices.
It is hard to conceive that eating popcorn should be a pressing need, so a double bag should be used.
On question 1157 in regards to microwave cooking being included in bishul akum we wrote: "Poskim also disagree. Minchas Chein (1 p. 177) maintains that according to Horav Moshe zt”l food cooked by a Gentile in a microwave oven is considered bishul akum. Shevet Halevi (8:185), Shraga Hameir 6: 52: 3) and Harav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l (Shvus Yitzchak vol. 6 page 61) assert a similar stringent opinion,
Other Poskim are lenient The arguments for leniency are that when one cooks with a microwave he is not cooking by fire and that microwave technology was not available at the time when Chazal promulgated the Bishul Akum decree and thus was not included in the proscription. Moreover, most food cooked in a microwave oven is not suitable to be served at a king’s table or a state dinner.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that in case of need such as when caring for the elderly and the ill, one may be lenient."
However, the Rov's opinion is that popcorn is not usually served in our countries at state dinners and is therefore not bishul akum.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/9/2018 12:25 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1919 The Real Wish List
|
|
|
Q: A. What is the original source of "Eilu Devarim SheAdam Ochel PeiroseiheM BaOlam Haze..." followed by a list of 10+* items that is recited after Birchat HaTorah found in Ashkenazik** siddurim?
- We know it's not the end/seifa of the 1st mishna in P'ea which lists only 4 items
- We know it's not the saying/memra of Rabbi Yochanan in Shabbos 127a which specifies 6 items (incl. Megadel Banim LeT"T & Dan Chaveiro LeKaf Zchus)
(The spelling of both above sources are "peiroiseiheN" with a Nun instead of Mem)
- I did not find it anywhere in the Tosefta P'ea either nor the Tur (Hil. Birkat Hatorah)
B...If the the siddur's print is indeed a made-up concoction of the 4 items at end of the mishna in P'ea + 4 items (out of 6/Shabbos 127a) from R' Yochanan + Hachnosas Kalla + Levayas HaMeis (I always thought Chesed shel Emes was not for reward in this world, but that's a side question. *Some siddurim add ..."Bein Ish LeIshto" to "ahavas shalom", others add "v'Ahavas HaBriyos", etc.)...
...wouldn't it be better to recite an authentic text in its originality from the Mishna & Gemara (in accordance with M.B. Siman 57:9 s.k. 20) to properly fulfill learning of Mikra+Mishna+Talmud immediately after the blessings?
I.e: Recite the first mishna in P'ea in its entirety, followed by the original text in Shabbos 127a: "Amar R'Yochanan shisha devarim adam ochel peiroiseihen"...etc.
**I saw that other siddurim like Nusach Teiman, after the verses of Birkat kohanim indeed have the entire above mishna, followed by an original saying from the gemara in Nidda 66a: "Amar R' Zeira Bnos Yisrael"...etc.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that there are several different girsaos or texts on the Talmud Shabbos, and this may be one of them.
Please see https://www.ou.org/torah/tefillah/tefillah-on-ou/eilu-devarim-part-i-the-mishna-in-peah/
for a very comprehensive and lengthy explanation and answer to your question.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as advised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/9/2018 12:07 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1918 A Complete Answer
|
|
|
Q. If just a bit of the chala or the matza is missing or broken off, is it still shleimim? How much?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's opinion is to follow the Shaarei Teshuva (274: 1) who quotes the view of the Rosh that if the missing or broken off small piece of bread is less than one forty eight of the bread, it is not considered incomplete. However, Shaarei Teshuva quotes other dissenting opinions.
On question 245 we wrote: It has become an accepted practice to re-bake or flame the edge of a broken matza to turn it into a shleimo (Seder Haoruch 22, 4 – Maadaney Yom Tov ch. 122 – Palgey Mayim 21 – Sidur Pesach Kehilchoso p. 22). Poskim disagree as to how much of the matza should be missing to make this necessary, also if the roundness of the matza has to be restored and if it can be done on Yom Tov (Shaarey Teshuva 274,1 – Maadaney Yom Tov ibid.).
See also Shemiras Shabbos K. (8: 7) in regards to the removal of the bakery label affixed or pasted to the chala. He rules it should be removed complete, to avoid tearing the letters on the label, even if some of the crust of the bread will also be excised.
The Rov recommended to take off the label after reciting the brocho.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/9/2018 11:57 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1917 Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread?
|
|
|
Q. For lehem mishneh are two shleimim required?
Does this apply to small chalos that are less than a kezais?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 274: 1) rules that one should break bread on the Shabbos seuda on two complete chalos. Mishna Berura (ibid. 1) quotes as the source the posuk mentioned by the monn (Shemos 16: 22); "On the sixth day that they gathered a double portion (lechem mishne) of bread."
The complete chalos or matza used for lechem mishne, should be each at least egg full sized (kebeitza), but not less than the size of a kezais (olive or half an egg - Kaf Hachaim ibid. 8, Chikrei Leiv 32).
However, in need Piskei Teshuvos (ibid. 2) mentions that one may use those small breads or matza crackers for lechem mishne, and then complement the amount of a kezais also needed for birchat hamazon, fom other sliced bread.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/9/2018 11:54 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1916 The Making of a Martyr
|
|
|
Q. If an individual who identifies as Jewish but is L'Halacha not Jewish, was murdered because he was a Jew. He was killed by gun shot while the murderer yelled "all Jews must die".
Is it considered that he died Al Kiddish Hashem? A Jewish friend want's to say kaddish. Is it appropriate to say Kaddish and learn a Mishna for them? We typically wouldn't do so for a Gentile.
A. Rambam (H. Teshuva 3: 5) maintains that Chasidei Umos Haolam deserve a place on Olam Habba. On H. Melachim (8: 10-11)he defines the virtuous Gentiles as the ones who keep the Seven Noachide mitzvos.
Talmud (Bava Metzia 114b) relates that Rabah Bar Avuha met Eliahu on a non Jewish cemetery.
Medresh Talpios (Anaf Eliahu Moshiach) comments that he went there to save the soul of a Gentile buried at that place. He was being taken to Gehenam, but since he had done favors to Jewish people in his lifetime, he was saved. See Yechave Daas (6: 60) that permits to recite kaddish on such a Gentile. See also Teshuvos Vehanhagos (2: 43).
Beohala Shel Torah (p.312) quotes as a remez to the above, the verse that establishes the nusach and form of kaddish; "Vehisgadalti Vehiskadashti ...Leinei Goyim Rabbim, And I will reveal Myself in My greatness and in My holiness and will be recognized in the eyes of many nations."
Chevel Nachalasso (40) addresses the case of a non-Jewish Israeli soldier, killed by Arabs, whether he is considered being Chasidei Umos Haolam, since he gave his life for protecting the Jewish people.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that in principle it is better to avoid reciting kaddish, but other tzedaka mitzvos, could be done in his name.
The Rov added a caveat, to consider well the surrounding group and circumstances of the mourning process involved, as one may incur in joining or supporting a non-kosher event.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/9/2018 11:28 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1915 A Show of Clean Hands
|
|
|
Q. When I leave the house, I would like my hands to be clean (for learning, making brachot, etc). My problem is that I put my shoes on by the front door and usually will touch my shoes, making them too "unclean" to say brachot, etc. If going back to the kitchen sink to wash is not an option (eg. shoes are too dirty/wet in winter), then what other options do I have? For example, would hand sanitizer work? How about hand moisturizer cream? Any other valid suggestions? Is wiping on a clean surface (eg. clothing) an acceptable alternative or its that really "b'dieved"?
A. See question 1064 in regards to washing hands after bloodletting or medical interventions, where we explained that there are different types and reasons for netilas yodaim. In some cases you require a keli or proper utensil as well as acceptable water for netilas yodaim, specially when a brocho is to be recited.
Horav Shlomo Miler's Shlit'a opinion is that when cleaning hands for the purpose of reciting brochos or learning Torah, when no ruach ra'ah is an issue, if no water is easily available, it suffices to clean with hand sanitizer liquids or gels. See also question 1727 in regards to washing hands after using a bathroom in our days.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/8/2018 2:27 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1914 Greatest of All Time
|
|
|
Q. My wife and I are debating how to name our next child to be born BE'H soon. We know he is a boy, and there are two equally reserving uncles that merit the name to be given. The names are Moshe and Avraham. We don't give a double name in our family. All things being equal, what name does Rav Miller shlita, recommend?
A. Their seems to be an apparent discrepancy in the words of our Sages as to which of our greatest spiritual leaders is more prominent, a few of the sources are hereby quoted.
From one side it would appear that Avraham Avinu was after all first to ascertain and conceptualize Hashem's Creation and rule of the universe and to spread that knowledge to the world at large. He is named the Merkava or chariot of the Shechina (Midrash and Zohar, Sheloh Lech Lecha, et. al.). He is mentioned in the first bracha of the amida, while Moshe Rabbenu is not mentioned at all. The Jewish Nation is named after him, as it is written; (Tehilim 47: 10) The people of the G-d of Avraham, and we are all considered his descendants. On the beginning of Parshas Voero, it seems that Hashem praised Avraham Avinu's acceptance as compared to Moshe, and called him to account for his harsh words of complain.
On the other hand, the most salient and most often mentioned personality in the Torah is after all Moshe Rabbenu, the one who brought it down and taught it to us. The Torah ends with; And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moshe, whom Hashem knew face to face. Rambam (H. Teshuva 5: 2) writes that "every person can be a tzadik as great as Moshe." The fact that the Rambam chose Moshe and not Avraham as the example to emulate, would indicate greater prominence. Talmud Chulin (89a) states in regards to the quality of humility that it is greater what is said about Moshe than what is said about Avraham. Talmud Rosh Hashana (21b) teaches that fifty are the Gates of Understanding that were created in the universe, forty nine were given to Moshe, as the posuk (Tehilim 8: 6) teaches: "You have made him slightly less than divinity, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty."
As it is apparent, there is no comprehensible or distinct indication as to which is the greater and more prominent of our historical leaders, and no clear suggestion as to which is the better name to give the newborn.
Therefore, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is best for the father to daven to Hashem to grant him the wisdom and do the right choice.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/8/2018 1:58 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1913 The Spirit of the Law
|
|
|
Q Why should not "Dina Demalchuta Dina" apply to all wills, and therefore become valid according to Jewish Law?
A. Some contemporary Poskim indeed maintain that secular wills are Halachically valid based on the principle of dino demalchuso dino, which translates as the law of the kingdom governs This obligation applies mainly in civil law, and not in matters of ritual law.
Igros Moshe, (E.H. 1: 104) mentions: "that although we are dealing with a gift to be made after the death of the donor, and there is no such thing as a gift after death, as the object no longer belongs to the donor and such a gift is therefore not valid in Jewish law, nevertheless, according to the law of the land a person can legally transfer with effect after death money or any other object which at that time obviously no longer belongs to him or her … but in essence it is clear, according to my humble opinion, that a testament of this kind, the dispositions of which will certainly be put into effect by the authorities of the country, does not need a kinyan as one could not imagine a more effective kinyan than this. Hence, since a kinyan is not necessary, the beneficiaries can uphold their right also against those persons who are the proper heirs by Torah law."
Achiezer (3: 34) also sponsors the principle of dino demalchuso since it makes the receiver a muchzak.
However, a number of Poskim disagree, and follow the opinion of the Remah, that it does not apply in monetary conflicts between two Jewish individuals, for if it would then all the monetary laws of the Torah would become void (Remah C.M. 9: 11, 253: 32) Pischei Choshen H. Yerusha 4: 34).
Binyan Ariel (p. 170), Minchas Yitzchok (6: 164) and other Poskim advise to make a proper tzavaah or testament following Halacha, but at the same time also write a legally executed will, that supports the tzavaah.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/8/2018 1:30 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1912 Pass it Down or Pass it Up?
|
|
|
I have a number of questions in regards to inheritance
Q. Is a secular will written by an attorney valid according to Halacha?
A. In principle a secular will, by which an individual estate is divided according to his own wishes and does not follow the dictum of the Torah, may not have any Halachic validity, since it takes effect after the death of the bestower.
According to Halacha, dead people have no rights over the property they owned while they were alive. Therefore, they have no right to dictate what happens to their property after they die. (Shulchan Aruch C.M. 258: 2)
The above greatly differs from secular law which, in principle, recognizes the right that people have to testamentary independence and can do whatever they want with their property after their demise.
See next question.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/8/2018 1:23 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1911 Right on the Money
|
|
|
Q. How come Abraham Avinu, who kept the complete Torah including eruv tavshilin, gave all his possessions to his son Yitzchak, thereby violating the mitzva of yerusha, as Shmuel says (Kesubos 33a); Don't take part in a transference of yerusha even from a bad son to a good one?
A. A number of answers are given; Rabbosenu Baalei Hatosafos explain that they were all converts and as the Talmud (Kidushin 17b) teaches; a ger does not inherit his father the ger.
Machane Yehuda (282) quoted by Yabia Omer (C.M. 8: 10: 2) maintains that it does not apply when the son removed from the inheritance is an idolater, as Yishmael was. .
Beer Sheva adds that the reason the Talmud gives is that one does not know if in the future, in another generation, a good son may result from this evil son. In Yishmael's and his other children case, Avraham Avinu foresaw with ruach hakodesh, that there were not to be good descendants.(See also Igros Moshe C.M. 2: 50, as this principle applies today).
Maharsho (Chidushei Agodos - Sanhedrin 91a) opines that since Sarah Imenu was his principal wife, so was her son.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a pointed out to what the Mizrahi (ad loc.) and others explain, namely that the posuk itself dictated; Ki Beitzchak yikareh lecha zera - Yitzchak will be your son.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 11/2/2018 5:34 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
