|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
# 1432 An Even Break
|
|
|
Kavod Harav,
Q. If one spoke after hearing Kiddush and before drinking the wine (before the cup was passed to him), he has to bless again. but if one spoke after hamotzi, after the baal habayis took a bite, he does not bless again. Why?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a pointed that Remoh (O.H. 167: 6) indeed rules that if one spoke and was mafsik or interrupted after listening to the brocho of the mevarech, but also after the mevarech ate from the bread, he does not have to repeat the brocho and the Remoh may maintain the same in regards to a break after the wine brocho. However, Mishna Berura (ibid. 43) mentions that almost all Poskim disagree with Remoh’s ruling and maintain that the one that spoke unnecessarily has to repeat hamotzi, similar to the one listening to kiddush that was mafsik before drinking fro the wine.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/11/2017 4:37 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1431 Disagree To Agree
|
|
|
Q. There is a popular Zemer sung on Shabbos morning beginning with the words "Chai HaShem Uvaruch Tzuri".
Most of the stanzas, while not making any overt mention of Shabbos, are understandable. However, there is one phrase that is very puzzling:
"Tzom'a Nafshi El HaShem, Yemaleh Sova Asamai, El Heharim Essa Einai, Kehillel Velo KeShammai."
What is the deal here with Hillel and Shammai?
A. There are many different interpretations to this cryptic verse, I’ll just quote a few. Most Meforshim explain that it refers to the disagreement quoted in Talmud (Beitza 16a): They said about Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in honor of Shabbos. How so? If he found a choice animal, he would say: This is for Shabbos. If he subsequently found another one choicer than it, he would set aside the second for Shabbos and eat the first. However, Hillel the Elder had a different trait, that all his actions, including those on a weekday, were for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated:(Tehilim 68: 20), “Blessed be Hashem, day by day;” Thus showing great and constant trust in Hashem, going thus back to “El Heharim” to our forefathers. (Birchas Chaim p. 276, Nofech Misheli p. 128, Oitzar Bolum p.31, Ikvei Yaakov p. 11, Beis Hamedrash Hechodosh, et. al.).
Yismach Yisroel (p. 357) explains that it relates to the difference of opinion concerning Chanuka lighting.(Shabbos 21b). Beis Shamai maintain that one lights the first day eight lights and henceforth, every day that passes he diminishes one. While Bais Hilel rules the opposite, and he keeps on adding every day one more light. He sees in the machlokes a difference of opinion as to what is a more correct approach in keeping mitzvos in general and in our case Shabbos. According to Shamai it is best to first abandon wrongs by doing proper teshuva. Only after the “sur merah” or abstaining from evil has been accomplished as a hachana or preparation to the mitzva, one should engage in doing good and perform the wanted will of Hashem. While Hillel advises not to delay and perform the mitzva immediately, while he also engages in performing teshuva and cleaning the soul.
Yashresh Yaakov (p. 101) sees the difference of opinions as simply who had the majority of the people with them. Hillel did and he was united with them and therefore the Halacha is like him. Shabbos together with teshuva are supposed to unite all, as it was when the Torah was given.
Mateh Yehuda (quoted in Meotzreinu Hayashan, Shemos 226). understands this as a reference to the disagreement as to the order of the brochos in kidush (Brochos 53a). This linguistic string follows the prior verse of “Kos Yeshuos,” I will lift the cup of salvation. We follow Hillel’s opinion that the blessing on the wine precedes the brocho on the holiness of the day.
Others see the humility and “ahavas habrios” love of others, prevalent in Hillel’s demeanor (Avos 1: ), which is essential in inviting and bringing people closer to “El Heharim,” their origins, by having them as guest on the Shabbos Table. (Minchas Aviv 2:)
There is another popular nusach or version that mentions “Kehillel Ukeshamai,” (Divrei Chaim, Sadigura, Shomrei Emunim, et. al.). According to some, it meant that there was no real Torah disagreement between them on this particular Shabbos approach, they simply were referring to their personal life experiences, and therefore different resulting conceptions and methods. Hillel suffered poverty, while Shamai did not. (Ikvei Yaakov p. 11).
Others explain that although in our days the Halacha follows Hillel, this stanza makes reference to the days of Moshiach, when the Halacha will follow Shamai. (Beer Hachasidus, quoting Arizal, p. 184).
Horav Dovid Pam Shlit’a pointed that Mishna Berura (250: 2) mentions that many Poskim maintain that Hillel himself would agree that Shamai’s opinion is better.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/11/2017 4:04 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1430 Creative Question
|
|
|
Q. Dear Rabbi,
I am a writer, and someone pointed me to a website where people can put up videos of themselves teaching any subject they feel they know something about.
People pay a monthly or yearly fee to have access to the videos.
Every month they take 30 to 50 per cent of the revenue they get from student membership, and pay the teachers--the people who made the videos-- according to what percentage their video was watched from the total of all the watched videos that month. For example if a person's video was watched 5% of the total time of all the watched videos, that person would get 5% of that months total revenue--from the 30 to 50 per cent that they put aside to pay the teachers. I hope I'm explaining this clearly
Some questions:
One is regarding Shabbos. People can go online anytime to watch the video and I would get paid for every minute they watch (according to the formula described above) People can watch it on Shabbos as well. Is this a problem?
Secondly, they want the teachers to give exercises for the students to do, and since I'm a writer, I would give writing exercises. Perhaps a Jewish person would watch my video on Shabbos and do my exercises on Shabbos. Is this a shaila?
I can also post videos that people can watch for free. This wouldn't give me income but would help promote my writing business.
In summary the questions are Can I post videos on this website for pay? Can I post videos on this website free of charge?
Thank you in advance for your response
A. On question 1347, regarding e-commerce & electronic transactions on Yom Tov we wrote: Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that operations, sales and purchases, that are done automatically (on-line) by a preset program, where no human intervention is needed, are not different than any Shabbos timer that does melochos on Shabbos by itself, after being programmed before Shabbos.
Similarly in your case, since the setting of the teaching videos was done not specifically to be played on Shabbos, it is similar to a vending machine that operates constantly. Since the majority of the people using that website are Gentiles, and the pay received is not only for the Shabbos usage of the video, but for the whole month, (behavlaa), the Rov’s opinion is that it is permitted.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/8/2017 3:03 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1429 No Plucking!
|
|
|
Q. Is a man allowed to remove or shave body hair for the purpose of helping to control body odor?
If so, is there a preferred method? Shinui?
If so, may it be done during the three weeks? The nine days?
A. On question 563 in regards for a man trimming his eyebrows if they are unruly and get into his eyes, or if his wife asking him to do it, we wrote; Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 182: 1) rules that it is forbidden for a man to remove bodily hair growth that women usually remove such as hair of the armpits or the genital area, due to the “lo yilbash” or not dressing like a woman prohibition. However Mordechai (Shabbos 50: 327) permits in cases of great discomfort or pain. Avnei Yoshfe (Y.D. 91) accordingly permits trimming eyebrows, adding that women pluck those hairs and do not usually trim them. Nishmas Avrohom (Y.D. 182 p. 140) quoting Horav S.Z. Auerbach Zt”l that permits the removal of embarrassing excessive hair between the eyebrows, (unibrow). Similarly Levush Malchus (4: 13) permits trimming with scissors, but not plucking with pincers. (See also Chevel Nachalaso 13, Birchas Yehudah (Y.D. 9) and other Poskim quoted in their notes for comparable opinions. See also Bava Kama 117a, that Rebbi Yochanan had very long eyebrows that covered his eyes).
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that the eyebrows can be trimmed for the sake of one being able to see properly but not with the exactness and meticulousness typical in women’s facial treatment.
On question 1348 in regards to removing all hair from head as in “male pattern baldness,” in order to look cleaner or better using depilatory creams or similar, we wrote; Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that there is no real heter or procedure to permit complete hair removal from head, including peyos. There are some biblical exceptions however, such as the metzorah on the day he is ritually cleansed (Vayikra 14: 8-9) and the nazir (BaMidbar 6:13,18) when the days of his consecration are fulfilled, in which all body hair was removed. However, doing it via drug ingestion, (if medically accepted) the Rov Shlit’a maintains that it probably would be permitted.
In regards to your particular question the same would apply. The Rov maintains that there are probably better common everyday methods to control body odor. Cutting hair short, without total removal is also a better option. Nonetheless, if removing all body hair besides the payos is recommended by doctors, it could be done when needed for medical reasons.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/8/2017 2:38 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1428 Brochos - Like a Box Of Chocolates?
|
|
|
Q. Shalom Harav
I recently was zoche to host a talmud chacham for a shabbos seudah. When it came time for desert. we served chocolate, and fruit.
Since the bracha on the fruit was recited first he asked for and alternative shehakol. When I asked him what the source was for not being able to make a shehakol on the chocolate, he explained a sevora; since the bracha of chocolate may very well be haetz, it may have been covered by the haetz recited on fruit.
Is there a source for this sevora?
yoshar koach
A. On question 562 in regards to the brocho on chocolate covered raisins we wrote: In the case of chocolate covering, some Poiskim opine that you anyway recite haetz on chocolate, although most disagree. (Minchas Shlomo 91:2, Shevet Halevy (ibid.) Teshuvos Vehanhogos (1: 187). Today it is customary to recite shehakol on chocolate. Question 1372 mentions: Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that we should follow the opinion of most Poskim that the proper brocho on chocolate is shehakol.
The reason for the ones that maintain the blessing is haetz is that chocolate is produced from the beans of the cocoa tree, and in principle they are the fruit of a tree. The rational for most Poskim who maintain the brocho is shehakol, is that after being processed, fermented, dried, roasted and ground, you cannot distinguish any similarity to the original fruit. The Rov also added, that there may be a reason for reciting adama.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/4/2017 11:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1427 Cat In The Sack?
|
|
|
Q. We are a family of Bnei Torah but we have had a cat for many years that grew up with our children and is like part of the family. The cat is old and sick, the vet says he has a kind of animal cancer and should be put down. We don’t know if it is suffering or not, should we follow his instructions? The vet says to have the cat cremated, is that correct or should we netter bury it in our back yard? Thanks so much for your advise.
A. Noda Beyihuda (Y.D. 2: 10) maintains that in hunting when it is permitted (not for sport) there is no concern of making the animal suffer, because “to kill animals or all types does not involve the prohibition of tzaar baalei chayim.” the actual killing is not considered causing an animal to suffer, and there is therefore no prohibition. Others disagree, Shoel Umeishiv (2: 3: 65) rules that the prohibition certainly applies to killing. He proves his case from the rationale presented by the Chinuch (440) for the mitzvah of shechitah. A similar principle emerges from the Ri Migash (cited in Shita Mekubetzes, Bava Metzia ).
Chazon Ish is quoted (in Dinim Ve-Hanhagos Mi-Maran Ha-Chazon Ish, 2: p. 40) as having been asked by a member of the family how a dying fly should be treated. The Chazon Ish responded that the fly should be killed, so as to prevent its extended suffering.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s opinion is that in your case, the assessment if the animal is suffering should be better done by the vet, who should also put him to sleep without suffering, when necessary.
As far as how to dispose of the body, the Rov recommends that it should be done in the most environmental friendly and legal way.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/3/2017 4:37 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1426 Living The Dream
|
|
|
Q. Dear Rabbi
What is Horav Miller’s opinion in regards to someone who had a repeated dream that he should not travel to a mishpacha simcha in Israel, because it will end in a tragedy, Can he go? Does he do hatavas chaloim?
A. Much has been written to explain the value of dreams in our tradition as there seems to be a degree of unclaraaaaity and ambiguity in the words of our Sages as to the worth of dreams. On the one hand, the Talmud states that dreams are one-sixtieth of prophecy (Berachos 57b), and a dream which is not interpreted is akin to an unread letter (55a). Yet at the same time the Talmud writes that no dreams are without nonsense (ibid., 55a), "Just as wheat cannot be without straw, so there cannot be a dream without some nonsense," and one's dreams are merely a reflection of what one is thinking during the day.. The interpretation of a dream depends on the explanation given by the interpreter (55b). As the Talmud makes clear, any dream can have either a good or a bad interpretation, and he may be at the mercy of the one who interprets it.
Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 220: 1- 2) describes the hatovas chalom ritual a person should follow when he experiences a dream that stresses and perturbs him, also the importance of the fasting, even on Shabbos to mend and rectify the dream. The above, should be done the same day and be accompanied with teshuva (Mishna Berura ibid. 6).
However, Shulchan Aruch (C. M. 255: 9) also rules that if a security was given to the now deceased father and the son does not know if his father received it or where he placed it. If he is then informed in a dream (Tur explains; even by the father himself), where the money is to be found, the amount and to whom it belongs. And behold, he actually finds that correct amount of money at that same place, he can keep the money for himself, since the words of dreams do not make a difference. (The S’ma, ibid. 29, explains that the part of the dream informing to whom it belongs, may not be true).
Tashbatz (2: 128) elucidates that dreams, their meaning and validity is a complex issue and depend on many different factors around and about them, such as who had the dream, who was the informer of the dream, etc. Orchois Tzadikim (Shaar Haemes) maintains that a person trained and disciplined in telling and thinking only the truth, will experience similar dreams. In general, Tashbatz writes, that some vivid or repetitive dreams can create a situation of doubt as to their veracity, and one should treat them as such. Therefore, when they involve a monetary issue, as a rule possession trumps and the monies or obligations stay where they are. However, Emek Shaila (Miketz, Sheilta 29: 15) adds, that following his ruling, when dealing with prohibitions (or mitzvos) such as if one dreamed, that a certain food (of his) is not kosher (on a Biblical level), he should treat it as a doubtful Biblical prohibition and it remains forbidden.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that in your case, since it involves a mitzva of traveling to Eretz Yisroel and partaking in someones simcha, you should follow the rule of the Shulchan Oruch (O.H. 220) quoted above. The Rov recommends to do hatovas chalom and give tzedaka as pidyon nefesh. (redemption of the soul).
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/3/2017 3:57 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1425 On Cloud Nine?
|
|
|
Q. Is dreaming about or choosing the number nine also represented on the letter Tet (see question 1424) also a good siman or a lucky number?
A. Pri Chaim (Komarner Rebbe) on parshas Vayetze mentions that it is indeed also a good siman. This is based on the posuk: “And Leah said,(Ba Gad, written in one word Bagad) "Luck has come"; so she named him Gad.” The gimatrya of “bagad” is nine. He explains that the month of Elul is represented also on the number nine and letter Tet. Since Moshe Rabbenu ascended on that month to heaven to bring to earth the second set of luchos that contain two letters Tet (netuya, yitav), as opposed to the first broken luchos, were there is no letter Tet.
He adds that Elul is completely tov and rachamim, unlike Tishrei, that also contains the Yemei Hadin.
Ben Yehodoya (Baba Kama p. 126) mentions that number nine is the best of numbers and stands forever. He explains that every time you multiply nine by another digit, the resulting ciphers, when added result in nine.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a added that from the month of Teveth, when the days get longer, a new year of light begins and Elul is the ninth month.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/3/2017 3:50 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1424 Tet Is Tov
|
|
|
Q. How true is it that if one dreams of the letter "טּ" (tet) at night when they're sleeping, it's really a good siman?
Thank you!
A. See question 1426 in regards to the validity and importance of dreams. Indeed the Talmud (Baba Kama 55a) teaches that it is a good (beautiful) sign for one to see the letter Tet in a dream. The Talmud explains that although there are many occasions where the letter Tet appears at the beginning a word with a negative connotation, since the very first time it is presented in the Torah is by the word Tov, that beginning represents the true essence of the letter. Ben Yehodaya (p. 125) adds that the numerical value of the word Yofe (as in siman yofe or a beautiful sign) is 95, equal to the gimatrya of the words Bachalom Tov.
Ben Yehodaya quoting Ginzei Yosef also adds, that at the end of days when the powers of tumah and impurity will disappear, the world will be compared to the letter Tet. Namely it will be enclosed and protected from all sides, leaving open, as with a secure door the top side, representing Hashem’s care and shelter to all of His Creation.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a added that Menachem Ben Saruq explains that the term “Vayeit” – and Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea” (Shemos 14: 27), is exceptional in that the root of that word is only on the letter Tet. Symbolically, all those portents and saving miracles, were also done with the strength of the letter Tet.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/3/2017 3:48 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1423 A Cover Up
|
|
|
Q. What is the reason for the custom to cover pictures in a house of mourning? Why was the custom enacted, seeing as photography was non-existent before 5587?
A. See question above in regards to covering mirrors. Shulchan Aruch (O. H. 90: 23) discourages (Rema ibid., prohibits) praying in front of decorated clothing and art work as it may interfere with one’s necessary concentration on the tefila.
Orchois Rabbenu (1: p. 57, 188) mentions that the Steipler Gaon zt”l would not daven shemone- essrei in a decorated suka. See also Kaf Hachaim (ibid.).
Poskim also mention that praying in front of a human picture, even of a Godol or great sage, is prohibited as it may seem that you are davening to him, ( Vayishma Moshe p. 269).
Others add that in a mourners house, art in display may be adding joy to the viewers and should be avoided (ibid.)
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is not to daven facing any picture.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/1/2017 3:43 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1422 Mirrors Mirrors On The Walls
|
|
|
Q. On a shiva house, does one uncover the mirrors on Shabbos?
Why do some people remove the mirrors from the wall in the house of mourning, when the vast majority just covers them?
A. Poskim offer different reasons for the covering of the mirrors in a house of mourning.
1) Since tefilos are said on site and one should not daven in front of a mirror, as it may be seen as praying to one’s own image. (Ridvaz 1: 106, Mishna Berura 90: 71- Chelek Levy: Y.D.132). thus covering should be sufficient and on Shabbos the avelim usually attend shul.
2) Mirrors are used for personal grooming and embellishment, activities that create joy and are discouraged during avelus, when one rents his clothing, does not bathe and change garments. It is a time for introspection and soul searching. (Keser Shem Tov 1: 704, Kol Bo p. 262)). Covering should be sufficient. but this may apply even on Shabbos. (Nishmas Yisroel 10: 1: p. 216)
3) Spirits and mazikim are attracted and may be present at the mourning house. They seem to be more apt to create damage on a mirror’s reflection (Ginzei Yosef 143, Nitei Gavriel - Avelus 1:92: n. 16). Covering should be sufficient. but this may apply even on Shabbos. (Nishmas Yisroel 10: 1: p. 216)
4) A reason similar to why they used to turn the beds in an ovel’s house. It represents the marriage relationship avoided on mourning. Mirrors would carry an analogous connotation. (Droshos Chasam Sofer 2: p. 387 – Nitei Gavriel ibid.). Covering would be insufficient, as it is with the beds, but similarly it is not done on Shabbos. ( Nitei Gavriel ibid. - Nishmas Yisroel ibid.)
In practice, Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is to uncover the mirrors in honor of Shabbos, unless there is a minyan at home.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/1/2017 2:37 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1421 Together Is Better
|
|
|
Shalom Aleichem Harav!
Q. I daven in a minyan that davens nusssach sefard; most of the mispallilm are not well versed with the nussach and revert to nussach ashkenass. The question is regarding the 13 attributes by tachanun; does it need to be recited by the whole minyan or at least 10 ?
Since the tzibur isn't accustomed we usually have at most 4 people saying the middos.
A. Tur (O.H. 565) quotes Rav Nosson that the 13 midos require a minyan for their recitation, and wonders why, since it is not a “dovor shebekdusha.” However, Beis Yosef (ibid.) citing Rashbo asserts it is a most holy recitation, and therefore requires a minyan. His argument emanates from the origins of this unique tefila, as our sages teach; Hashem covered Himself alike a shliach tzibur and demonstrated to Moishe, how the people should pray, so He will surely answer them. Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 5) rules accordingly. Mentioning that without a minyan they cannot be recited as a tefila and supplication, but they can be recited as one reading the Torah. Mishna Berura (ibid. 12) explains that he should read it with the taamim an intonations usually uttered then.
Poskim disagree, whether you require at least six people to recite the attributes at the same time, or just the mere presence of a minyan suffices, and they may be recited by others a bit latter when they reach that place in tefila.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a advises to make short the recitation, and just mention the thirteen midos without the rest of the accompanying oration, so everyone will say it at the same time.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/1/2017 2:23 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1420 Call In Sick
|
|
|
Q. What is the reason for the custom to say that someone has "yener machla" instead of saying he has "cancer"?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that this reflects a Talmudical principle (Brochos 19a). The Talmud relates that, during the levaya, the mourner would stand and justify Hashem’s judgment, saying: Master of the Universe, I have sinned greatly against You, and You have not collected even one one-thousandth of my debt... then Abaye asserted that a person should not express himself in that way, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and it was also taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One must never open his mouth for the Satan to find a way to accuse him, i.e., one must not leave room for or raise the possibility of disaster or evil, since Satan may bring it on him.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 376: 2) that a visiting dignitary should not tell a mourner or the ill person he is visiting, and who want to stand up in his honor, to stay or remain as they were, since that could be interpreted, that he wishes they remain in their sickness or their mourning.
The
Rov added that someone justifying his absence at an event he was expected to attend,
claiming being unable because of health issues, does not constitute an act of “Al iftach
peh,” since people are often not feeling completely well.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/31/2017 10:59 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1419 Don’t Look - Just See
|
|
|
Q. Can you tell other people about a solar eclipse?
A. On the introduction to Chidushei Hagranat (p. 14- relating the life-history of Hagaon Rav Naftoli Trop zt”l) the following is quoted: Rabbi Shmuel Pliskin zt”l, a talmid of the Yeshiva in Radin, in an article published in the monthlyTorah Journal titled “Bais Yaakov” (Elul 5722/1962, Page 13 – relates that the Chofetz Chaim instructed the residents of Radin to view a solar eclipse (that occurred in Radin) to see how the Ribono Shel Olam slowly ceases the koach of the mighty sun, which is worshiped by some nations as an Avoda Zarah, to show that the sun was nivra (created) and is a not a borei (creator). He adds that next to the Yeshiva building, the bachurim were standing… and Rav Naftoli, the Rosh Hayeshiva was looking through a soot coated glass… and in awe exclaimed; you should not look (into the sun), but you should see and understand.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that indeed, if someone was to have a correct and propitious intention in his act of witnessing the greatness and beauty of Creation, as the Chofetz Chaim had, he would be commended for his participation, as he would for any similar mitzva.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:36 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1418 Eclipsed Blessings
|
|
|
Q. Does one make a brocho (ose mase bereshis) when watching the solar eclipse?
A. We do not find in Talmud or Shulchan Aruch that our sages instituted any blessing for eclipses;
although a bracha is recited on other constant niflaos and wonders of Hashem’s Creation such as thunder, lightning, meteors and comets and according to many Poskim even earthquakes. Contemporary Poskim maintain that we do not recite a brocho on eclipses. (Orchois Rabbenu (1 p. 95) and Shaarei Brocho (21: n. 73- Shaar Hoayin 7: 6 n. 13, mentions that Shevet Halevy was in doubt).
Ase Lecha Rav (5: 7) explains that ose maaseh Bereishis is only recited for natural events, which are part of the positive Creation of Bereishis. The Talmud (Suka 29a) adverts that a likui chama, is an outcome of man’s sinful conduct. It is a threatening sign of a time of din and judgment. Most commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses, although it is quoted that Horav Yoinosson Eibshutz zt’l maintained they were sunspots. (It is questionable how in 1751, without telescopes, sunspots could be observed).
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is similar. On question 708 on this forum in regards to the Aurora Borealis lights, we wrote that: Although the Northern Lights is a display of one of the most striking and magnificent phenomena in nature, Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that since this event is not recorded in the Talmud or Poskim directly, one should recite Ose Maase Bereshis without the name of Hashem. However, for an eclipse one should not recite this brocho, even without Hashem’s name. This being similar to what the Talmud (Brochos 40b) mentions, that we don’t recite a blessing on
a produce that emanates from scourge or the opinion of the Tumim (97) on why we don’t recite a blessing on giving tzedaka, since it involves the curse of poverty.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:34 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1417 Don’t Follow The Sign?
|
|
|
Q. The Mishnah Berurah (beginning of siman 229) says that one should not publicize the sighting of a rainbow because it is like Lashon Horah. Should one also refrain from publicizing the event of a lunar eclipse which, according to popular translation of the gemora (Sukka 29a), is referred to as a bad sign for Jews?
A. Although Mishna Berura (229: 1) quotes from Chaye Adam the term “motzei dibo” is does not refer or imply the common lashon hora meaning, but rather conveying something that may be harmful or proscribed to another, as gazing at the rainbow may be. (Taanis 16, Remah, Mishna Berura ibid 5).
However, in regards to announcing or publicizing a lunar eclipse, Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that it is different than a rainbow.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:32 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1416 The Late Boomer
|
|
|
Q. Until when can the father of the bar mitzva boy say the bracha of baruch sheptarani, if he didn’t say it at the bar mitzva?
A. Although, we don’t recite this brocho with the name of Hashem, Poskim (Ketzos Hashulchan 65, Michtam Ledovid 13) maintain that it should be said until thirty days after the bar mitzva.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:30 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1415 Bless One’s Lucky Start
|
|
|
Q. What is the proper procedure to follow when teaching a youngster who is not yet completely religious (baal teshuva) to start making brochos before eating; should he abstain from a brocho if the food is likely kosher but does not have a hechsher? Or should he only refrain when the food is undoubtedly treif, such as non-kosher meat or meat and milk?
Does one make a brocho is he has to eat non-kosher meat because of pikuach nefesh?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that if the food is likely kosher even if it does not have any certification, (it may contain non-kosher ingredients that bedieved, after the fact would be permitted in need), if it cannot be avoided by the not yet completely baal teshuva youngster, he should be taught to make a brocho. However, when the food is certainly not kosher, as meat or meat and cheese, he should not recite a brocho.
Poskim disagree if one recites a brocho is he has to eat non-kosher meat because of pikuach nefesh. Rav Yerucham quoted in Bais Yosef (O.H. 204) maintains he does not. However, Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 9, and 196: 2)) follows the opinion of the Rosh and Rambam and rules to recite a brocho before and after. Mishna Berura (ibid.48 and 5) explains that since he is eating something that because of his extreme delicate condition is not only permitted, but constitutes also a mitzva to eat and save his life, he should recite the corresponding brochos. Mishna Berura adds (204: 48) that if he finds the food disgusting and nauseous, he should not recite any brochos.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:20 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1414 The Life Of The Party
|
|
|
Q. Until when can the family of a bar mitzva bochur make a seuda after the day he became of age?
A. Maharam Brisk (2: 68) and other Poskim maintain that the correct and best time for the bar mitzva seuda is on the day the bochur actually begins his obligation of keeping mitzvos (Bo Bayom).
Pischei Teshuva (Y.D. 217: 16) quotes Chavos Yoir that up to three days after the birthday one may still celebrate the seuda, since the imprint is retained and the impression still remains, as we similarly find in regards to the takonas Ezra of reading the Torah at least within three days.
However, many postpone and celebrate the main seuda on the Shabbos after, even when the Bo Bayom was at the beginning of the week, as they want to include the guest that may not be able to attend on a weekday. Nitei Gavriel (Bar Mitzva 16: 8) quotes Mogen Avrohom, Divrei Yatziv, et. al. And mentions that so was the tradition of the Chasam Sofer, Ksav Sofer and others).
Nonetheless, Poskim stress that the bar mitzva bochur should impart and say his drosho (traditional bar mitzva Torah-speech) at that occasion to ascertain it is a seudas mitzva. Maharam Brisk (ibid.) maintains that when the bochur has not yet learned properly his drosho, one may postpone the seuda until he is properly prepared.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:11 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1413 Catch The Name
|
|
|
Q. Regarding the opinion of Rav Miller shlita that one who davens in English should at least say the names of Hashem in the Holy Tongue - what should one do with the phrase "Hashem Elokeinu vaylokay avosaynu"? Should one recite this entire phrase in the Holy Tongue, even though the rest of the prayer is in English? Is it derech eretz to mix languages within a single sentence or prayer when speaking to the Borei Olam?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that it is best that one should recite the complete brocho section of Hashem’s names at be beginning of the amida in Lashon Hakodesh; that is from Baruch Ata until Elokei Yaakov. The same applies to other blessings. He added that effort should be constantly dedicated to advance and achieve proper Hebrew pronunciation as soon as possible. One may use a transliterated sidur when so needed. See question 1266 and 1003 in this forum.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit’a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/25/2017 2:06 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
