|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
# 1135 Much Ado About a Seadoo
|
|
|
Dear Rabbi
Q, Can I buy a seadoo during three weeks, since it is available now at a discounted price and just give a deposit? I will not be having any intention to acquire the machine, until delivery after the 3 weeks, but still legally, it is mine. I this permitted? Can I take it for a test drive?
A. See question 100 in this forum where we mention that Igrois Moishe’s (O.C. 3, 80) opinion is that if the car is a pleasure vehicle, one should avoid acquiring it during the 3 weeks, as he has to pronounce the brocho of Sheheheyonu (or Hatov Vehameitiv), when taking possession. Horav Shlomo Miller's opinion is that if one takes delivery of the vehicle after Tisha B'av it is permitted until the nine days begin, as no brocho will be recited yet.
See also similar question 596 on acquiring a new vehicle during this period: “However, during the Nine Days any purchase that provides enough joy to qualify as “Binyan Shel Simcho” should be avoided and no Hatov Vehameitiv should be recited. (Igrois Moishe ibid.). When this could not be achieved before the Nine Days, Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that in case of need one may still sign a purchase contract. However, he should condition his signature on the contract and the deposit of monies, to only agreeing to purchase the car in the near future, not actually buying it and owing it now. Therefore until he takes possession of the automobile the ownership will remain in the hands of the vendor.”
In the case of a seadoo, that is primarily a recreation vehicle and also involves a degree of danger, Horav Shlomo Millers Shlita opinion is to preferably wait until after the three weeks. If that would imply a loss, it could be purchased before the nine days, following the above guidelines.
One is permitted to take the vessel for a test drive.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/2/2016 10:45 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1134 A Blessing in Disguise?
|
|
|
Q. If one said Kiddush on wine before a Seudah (Shabbos/Yom Tov), does one say Shahakol on ice cream if it is served as dessert (for those who are accustomed to make a bracha on ice cream during a meal)?
A. Poskim disagree, some (Vezos Habracha p. 98, Birchas Hashem p. 45, Ohr Torah – Sivan 5761 p. 626) maintain that one does not recite a brocho, The reason being mainly that they consider ice cream to be a liquid and the brocho said on the wine exempts liquids that one drinks after the wine. Also, some are in doubt on the above and they rule that safek brachos lehakel, when in doubt, we do not recite.
Others, (Mibeis Levi p. 49, Vezos Habracha ibid. quoting the Staipler Gaon zt”l) maintain that ice cream is solid food and it does not become exempt with the wine brocho.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a agrees with this last opinion.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/2/2016 10:31 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1133 Now, It's a More “Safer Torah”
|
|
|
Q. We had an unusual shayla in our minyan this last Monday. We took out one of the various Sifre-Torah rolled to Parshat Pinchas and the baal koreh noticed that someone, probably out of simple ignorance, had corrected the Vav-Ketia on the word shalom (you could see that there was some ink added to the gap – we keep some ink and feathers inside a compartment of the Aron Hakodesh). We didn't know what to do, so we took out another Sefer Torah. Was that the correct decision?
A. There are a number of different opinions in regards to the need, origin and ways to write the vav- ketiah. The Talmud (Kidushin 66b) mentions in the name of Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel, that the source of the rule that the service (avoda) performed by a blemished (baal mum) Cohen, is invalid, is the posuk: (Bamidbar 25: 12) “Behold, I give him My covenant of peace.” Meaning, as Rav Nachman explais, that since the letter vav of “Shalom” is truncated, it reads rather as “Shalem” or complete and unblemished.
Some maintain the this vav, belongs to the group of small letters in the Torah. (Medresh Rabbi Akiva – Botei Medroshos p.479). Others (Minchas Shai (ibid.) quoting Ritva, Shut. Rabi Akiva Eiger 75, et. al.) opine that it is a regular sized letter but with a shorter foot; larger than a yud but shorter than a regular vav. They also assert, that even the opinions that it is read as a yud, still hold that it is a bit larger than a regular yud (ibid.)
Many avert that it is a regular vav that is split or truncated somewhere in the middle. Where in the middle is also subject to different opinions, as well as the angle of the split (Ohr Torah quoted in Minchas Shai ibid. et. al.).
Some Poskim maintain that the Halacha does not follow Rav Nachman, and there is no vav-ketiah at all. They emphasize that no such vav is found in ancient Sifrei Torah or mentioned in Rambam or Tur-Shulchan Aruch (Pachad Yitzchak – Sefer Torah p, 148, quoting The Venetian Sages). Some communities like the Yemenite, do not have that tradition at all. While Shevet Hakehassi Y.D. 1: 297 mentions it is a Halacha LeMoshe MeSinai.
There is also mention of other vavin ketios in the Torah, such as the vav of “Vatomos Sarah” (Bereshis 23: 2 – Machzor Vitri p. 677) or “Eileh Keruei Haeidah” (Bamidbar 1: 16 – Baal Haturim).
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that it was unnecessary to take out another Sefer Torah, even according to those who maintain that tradition, as it is only a Masores. He also suggested that since this occurred in a weekday, it could have been easily fixed by just scratching the vav with a pin or similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/1/2016 9:59 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1132 Daven Maven
|
|
|
Daven Maven
Q1. The baal tefillah this morning at my minyan has a habit of 'eating his words' . This means, among other things, that his brachas often leave out words so that it becomes "Baruch ... Hashem ...nuMelech...olam". (I have a recording of this). My question is whether I am yotzei with some of his brachas and whether it would be better if I quietly leave for another minyan when that opportunity exists.
A. Harav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that in principle and on the onset, one should make every effort to daven with a proper minyan directed by a knowledgeable and Torah educated shaliach tzibur, who knows how to pronounce his brochos and tefilos properly. However, after the fact, since in our days, we are really not yotze or comply by just listening to any of the brochos recited by the sheliach tzibur, but we rather say everything ourselves, therefore there is no need to abandon the present minyan and look for a doubtfuly better one.
As long as there is a minyan of people praying together one complies with tefila betzibur.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/29/2016 6:15 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1131 Time Lag Plag
|
|
|
Q. A woman whose husband made “early Shabbos” may not do any Melacha after the time that her husband was Mekabel Shabbos. [This is unlike the opinion of the Gaon Rav Feinstein zatzal, but this is the ruling of many poskim, including the Shevet HaLevi, the Gaon Rav Wosner zatzal.]
So the question I have is: If a shul is mekabel Shabbos with "Mizmor Shir" etc. at exactly Plag Hamincha, when should the wife (whose husband davens in that shul) light Shabbos candles?
A. Igrois Moishe (O.H. 3: 38) indeed maintains that the early Shabbos acceptance of the husband does not oblige his wife to refrain from melochos. However, this applies when he does so for the convenience of an early meal during the summer months and not for the mitzva of tosefes Shabbos in a minyan kavua.
Piskei Teshuvos (263: 37) after quoting the Mekor Chaim and Chavos Yoir, that also maintain that the kabolas Shabbos of the husband includes the wife, mentions (ibid. n. 337) that this applies only to the proper beginning of the M’ariv davening and not to the prior recited mizmorim. Nevertheless, even if it would commence at “Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbos,” since “Lecha Dodi” is usually sang and repeated by all, adding the recitation of the prior six mizmorim, you end up with at least ten minutes from the beginning of kabolas Shabbos .
Therefore, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a suggests, that kabolas Shabbos should begin at plag, thus giving the women ten or more minutes to light candles. (See also questions 88 and 98 in this forum).
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/29/2016 4:25 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1130 First In
|
|
|
Q. Two individuals face each other at a bathroom door, one leaving the bathroom and one entering, who has din kadima and goes first?
A. An entrance to a public bathroom, public bath, steam bath or similar, does not necessitate or involve honouring people. Although one may argue that the fellow entering a public lavatory should have priority, since he may be transgressing the prohibition of “ba'al teshaksu” by constraining himself, still Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a maintains, that the conventional wisdom and accepted behaviour of exiting and giving space to the ones entering, trumps.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/27/2016 10:08 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1129 In and Out
|
|
|
Q. When two individuals meet, one exiting a shul or a beis hamedresh and the other about to enter, who has din kadima and goes first?
A. Rema Mipano (Teshuvos 83) rules in regards to two individuals, one who is given an aliya to read the Torah and the other now returning to his seat after finishing his aliya, that the one being called goes first. He explains that the one who has already read first, has already been honoured and now it is his turn to honor the one called next. He proves his point from Talmud (Suka 56a) that the incoming Cohanim enter the temple court from the preferred right (the north) while the exiting leave from the left (south). He goes even further and mentions that the above would apply even when honouring a disciple before his master.Ginas Verodim (O.H. 1: 23) rules similarly and states that the person about to comply with a mitzva preempts the one who has already done so. However, he maintains the this only applies when both are of equal stature and the talmid should always honor his Rebbi. (see also Torah Lishma 59).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that when we are not dealing with people about to do a mitzva but rather when they are engaged in reshus or optional activities, and both individuals are of equal status, conventional wisdom and commonly accepted protocol dictates that the one exiting goes first, in order to provide space to the incoming one.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/27/2016 10:06 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1128 Bimatapping On Shabbos
|
|
|
Q. Can a gabai leave on a recording device on Shabbos by the bima, so there will be a record of the donations given, when the people are not aware they are being recorded? Why is this any different than the security video recorders installed now at every building, store and even the shul, activated as you walk on the street or into the building?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that this is prohibited, even when the recorder is left on before Shabbos or has a timer. The prohibition is on the gabai who left on the recording devise and this would include also video recorders when not needed for security reasons.
See Chashukei Chemed and Veha'arev N'a (Shlach) on a similar question where he deals with the payment of the neder that was unlawfully recorded by the gabay on Shabbos.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/27/2016 12:06 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1127 Double Talk?
|
|
|
Q. Why do we prohibit using a microphone on Shabbos, and we permit speaking to a person wearing a hearing aid?
A. Igrois Moishe (O.H. 4: 85) explains that microphones became prohibited by most Poskim because they involve “hashmoas kol” or an activity that is publicized and creates awareness to all that a prohibited melocho is possibly being transgressed, which is not the case with a hearing aid.
Also, he adds, only a small amount of people in need require hearing aids, thus it is a “milsa delo shechiach” or an uncommon occurrence, that our sages usually do not prohibit.
See last question, where we quoted an additional reasoning that in reality the melocho is not done by the hard of hearing, but by the one who addresses him, and he is “eino mechaven” (does it without intention). Igrois Moishe maintains that it is not an unavoidable melocho prohibited also when done without intention, since the hard of hearing may not even be listening.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/25/2016 10:49 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1126 Turn a Deaf's Ear
|
|
|
Q. Can a person who needs a hearing aid, adjust the volume on Shabbos? With a shinui?
A. Igrois Moishe (O.H. 4: 85 – see last question) permits the use of a hearing aid, since in reality the melocho is not done by the hard of hearing, but by the one who addresses him, and he is “eino mechaven” (does it without intention). Igrois Moishe maintains that it is not an unavoidable melocho (psik reisha), prohibited also when done without intention, since the hard of hearing may not even be listening.
Shemiras Shabbos Kechichoso (34: 28), quoting Minchas Shlomo, permits using a hearing devise when it was left on before Shabbos. He also permits adjusting the volume when necessary.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that when possible it should be done with a shinui or using an unusual way for accomplishing the task, such as the back of the finger or the knuckles.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/22/2016 5:14 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1125 I See the Light
|
|
|
Q. Regarding many areas in hilchos Shabbos there is a difference if the melocha is from the Torah or derabanan: amira lakum, maseh Shabbos etc. What is the status of electricity regarding such issues?
A. When electricity is used to make a filament glow and give light or to provide heat as in stove burners or the like, most Poskim maintain that one transgresses the biblical prohibition of ma’avir (kindling - Achiezer 3: 60, 4: 7, Beis Yitzchok Y.D. 120 – 125, Minchas Shlomo 12, Meorei Haeish, Yesodey Yeshurun – Maavir, et.al.). Others call it mevashel - cooking (Chazon Ish 50: 9). A few maintain that it is only rabbinical since even when the metal gets heated and burns or when it glows, it does not get consumed.
When no light or heat is produced, some still maintain that the Torah prohibitions of bonneh (building) apply, since the closed electrical circuit binds together the different components of the appliance or electrical device (Chazon Ish 50: 9). Another biblical prohibition considered is tikun mono (finishing the making of a utensil), since without the electrical power being applied the devise is non-functional and useless. However, other Poskim are lenient and may permit the use of electrical circuitry in cases of need such as in hearing aids or similar (Igrois Moishe O.H. 4: 85, see next question). Some Poskim (Beis Yitzchok Y.D. 1: 2) also assert that one transgresses on the rabbinical proscription of molid (bringing about any creative change in an item).
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that in most cases activating any electrical circuitry, even when no heat or light is created, besides the rabbinical prohibition of molid, should be considered at least as a sofek deuraisso, or doubtful Torah prohibition because of the tikun mono involved.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/22/2016 2:22 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1124 Hotel Or Notel
|
|
|
Q. Can I be a partner in a non-kosher hotel?
A. Poskim maintain that one should not enter into a business venture with a Gentile that commercializes with non kosher products (Maharam Shik 136, Rama M’Pano 30, Darchei Teshuva 117: 17 et. al.)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that one may divide the business into different areas and the Jewish partner should remove himself from the non-kosher food service section of the partnership. Alternatively, an independent caterer could be running the food service section.
A competent rabbi should be contacted to draft the Halachicaly correct agreements between the partners.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/21/2016 11:40 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1123 Corner the Market
|
|
|
Q. The fact that a non kosher product is sold mostly to non-Jews does that permit marketing it?
A. The prohibition to commercialize with non kosher products applies even when you sell the items only to Gentiles. This is obvious, since selling to Jews would be anyway prohibited as placing a stumbling bock before the blind (lifnei iver) or helping others to do something prohibited (mesayea).
Remah (117: 1) prohibits buying non-kosher food for one's Gentile workers. Many Poskim permit, as they don't consider this to be a business. (Shach ibid. 3, Taz ibid. 2. See Pischei Teshuva ibid. 4)
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/20/2016 12:22 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1122 Out of Touch
|
|
|
Q. The fact that I just will do office work, and will not come in physical contact with the product itself, does that permit importing and distributing non kosher foods?
A. Gilyon Maharsho (Y.D. 117: 1) rules that one may not give money to a Gentile to do business for him in forbidden products, even if he wont be in contact with the items. (See also Maharam Shik Y.D. 136: p. 41, Darchei Teshuva 117:2). Some Poskim would extend the above to include buying stocks in a non-Kosher public company. Other Poskim permit, as they see the purchase of stock only as an investment and not an actual business endeavour. (See Shearim Metzuyanim B’halacha 64: 4 Kuntres Achron, 114: 28)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that it is preferable, even in rabbinically prohibited items (see question above), not to become the owner of the imported non-kosher products and act only as an agent for import and distribution.
A competent Rabbi should be consulted to draft the business agreement that would Halachicaly permit the above.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2016 3:28 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1121 Not Kosher For Nosher
|
|
|
Q. Hi Rabbi,
Is there a problem in importing a diet product that some of the ingredients are not kosher?
A. Mishna (Sheviis 7: 3), Rambam (Macholos Assuros 8: 18), Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 117), rule that there is a prohibition to commercialize with non kosher products.
Poskim disagree whether this is a biblical prohibition (Aruch Hashulchan 117: 3 from Pesachim 23a, Chochmas Odom 69: 1: brackets, Chassam Sofer Y.D. 105-106 et.al.) or a rabbinical one (Rashbo, Trumas Hadeshen 200, Noda Beyehuda 2: Y.D. 62 – 63 et.al. ). The reason being, that if one does business with prohibited products, one may inadvertently eat them.
However, Poskim permit dealing with products that are only rabbinicaly prohibited (Rambam ibid. Shulchan Aruch ibid.) such as bishul akum (Chelkes Binyomin 117:34), or Gevinas Akum (Tur 117, Chochmas Odom 69: 2). Some Poskim maintain that one should not keep such products around in one’s house for more than twenty-one days since he may end up eating them (Chelkes Binyomin 117:1, see also Darchei Teshuva 117:60).
From the information provided on the labels of the products you want to import, it appears that it is likely, due to a number of reasons, that they may only be rabbinicaly prohibited and therefore permitted for commercialization.
However, Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that preferably, a special business arrangement should be established with the suppliers. (See next question)
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2016 3:24 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1120 It’s Complicated
|
|
|
Q. 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.
A. 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 an 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 7/15/2016 6:10 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1119 Mazal Tov! You Are Married
|
|
|
Q. If after a chupa, it became known that the witnesses were related to each other with a disqualifying familial closeness, does Rav Miller hold that the kidushin have to be repeated, or we can bedieved relay on the Chassam Sofer that permits?
If they have to be repeated, do you make a brocho and repeat the sheva brochos too?
A. Chasam Sofer (Tesh. E. H. 1: 100) indeed rules in a similar case (one of the witnesses was related to the bride) that the kidushin take effect. He explains that since there where many other people present, who would qualify as kosher witnesses and it is an “umdena demuchach” (obvious case) that the couple under the chupa got married, we all became de facto witnesses (anan sahadi) that the marriage took place, and there is no need to repeat the act of kidushin.
Otzar Haposkim (42: 31) quotes diverse opinions in regards to the above. Mentioned there is also the tenet of Kerem Shlomo (21) that it makes a difference whether the chosson himself nominated the eidim or when they were chosen and dedicated by someone else, like the ministering rabbi. In the later case, even if the chosen witnesses turned up to be non acceptable, since the chosson had in mind only the proper eidim, the selection becomes ineffective and anyone kosher to witness, will become automatically an eid.
Hanesuim Kehilchoson (1: 8: n.15) deduces from the above, that it is commendable that the officiating Rov should be the one to appoint the witnesses. However, Nitey Gavriel, (Nisuin 1: 20: 5: n. 8) quotes different opinions and mentions that the minhag Brisk is that the chosson nominates the eidim.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that it is better when possible to tactfully and discreetly, repeat the kidushin without any brocho at all. However, as far as a get is concerned, she is considered married without doubt.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/15/2016 1:28 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1118 Write or Right?
|
|
|
Q. If you find a common ordinary ballpoint pen that is similar to many others on a table in a shul or other frequented Jewish institutions, can you use it or even keep it?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if the pen has been abandoned for days or some reasonable time to assert that it was abandoned, and not just left there until the owner comes back, it could be used and kept.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/15/2016 1:21 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1117 Go to G-d to Godol
|
|
|
Q. Is it correct for a teacher to keep on telling his students that they can all grow to be Gedolei Yisrael, when it is obvious that they don’t have the mental or any other abilities to be so and later in life they will become heavily discouraged and may go off the derech?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the definition of a Godol Yisroel is the one that serves Hashem completely, without reservation and placing all of one's effort and exertion to achieve being a total eved and servant to Hashem. (Rambam H. Teshuva 5: 2) writes; “Every person is fit to be as righteous as Moshe Rabbenu”)
The above can be achieved by almost anyone who has the conviction, will and stamina to do it. The Rov pointed as an example; Rav Nachumke of Horodna zt”l, known as a very great tzadik and for being the Rebbe of the Chofetz Chaim. His position was not more than a shamesh (sexton) in shul, yet he was undoubtedly a Godol Yisroel.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/15/2016 1:12 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1116 Avoid the Avoda Zara
|
|
|
Q. Hi, I wonder if it would be OK, halachically right to use a golden cross and melt it to make it into a Magen David necklace? I was thinking about the golden calf that was destroyed and it's gold not reused, and I suspect it might be avoda zara to do it.
Kol tov,
A. Objects used as a deity or an idol are forbidden in benefit. This is derived from the verse written with regard to the property of the inhabitants of an Ir Ha'Nidachas: "Nothing shall remain in your hand from the banned property" (Devarim 13: 18 - Rambam H. Avodah Zarah 7: 2)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if the cross was seen and served as an idol itself and was worshipped as such, it would become prohibited in benefit. However, if it was only a symbolic object, representing another deity, it would be permitted.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/14/2016 10:44 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
