|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
# 1169 Beis Din Check In
|
|
|
Q. Is someone was forced to go to a secular court by a Psak given by a Beis Din for refusal to attend and then he changes his mind and decides to attend Beis Din. Would automatically the heter given to the other party to take him to court be nullified?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that it would be nullified if the defendant attends without any further delays that particular Beis Din where he was summoned before. He also has to pay the plaintiff any costs that he may have incurred due to his prior refusal to attend Beis Din.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 10/1/2016 10:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1167 What's Not Cooking?
|
|
|
Q. Is Sous-Vide (under vacuum, see above question) cooking considered cooking for bishul akum or mevushal on Shabbos purposes?
May one leave it overnight on Shabbos or is it prohibited hatmana?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that although unusual cooking such as cooking by hot smoke or in the sun's rays was not included in the bishul-Akum decree, sous-vide is considered cooking for becoming prohibited as bishul Akum.
Since the cooking temperature is above 45ş C. It is also considered mevushal for Shabbos purposes.
As far as hatmana is concerned Chazon Ish (37: 32) maintains that there is no hatmana prohibition when placing food in a utensil inside the food contained in another vessel, such as a plastic bag or aluminum foil containing kugel or kishke inside the pot of tcholent before Shabbos. He adds that the two containers are considered as one. Some Poskim maintain that this is only permitted when the inner container is not completely covered by the food in the pot. (Ohr Hameir p. 76 quoting Taz s. 258)
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is to be lenient since the inner plastic bag is not covered completely.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/30/2016 2:42 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1168 Bed and Water
|
|
|
Q. Should one who was recommended by a chiropractor to sleep on a water pillow or water mattress, avoid doing so, because the water would acquire a ruach ra and you would be continuously in touch with it? Can you use that water for neigl vaser?
A. Talmud (Pesachim 112a) teaches that food and beverages left underneath a bed, even if covered in iron a ruach ra or bad spirit will rest on them. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 116: 5) rules accordingly that they should not be placed there. After the fact, Poskim disagree whether one can consume them them or not.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that this applies to water used for drinking and not one dedicated for support and comfort purposes. Even if a ruach ra would rest on them, there is no issue with laying on them or next to them.
Shevet Halevi (8: 22: 2) debates whether such water could be used for netilas yodaim after sleeping on them, to remove the ruach ra from the hands. He permits when no other water is available.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that the water should not be used for netilas yodaim since it was used for doing work (Na'ase bohem melacha), besides it is likely not fit for drinking.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/30/2016 2:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1166 Nat or Not Nat?
|
|
|
Q. Rabbi,
Hope all is well.
As I mentioned Sous-Vide " (under vacuum) is a method of cooking in which food is sealed in airtight plastic bags then placed in a water bath for longer than normal cooking times (usually 1 to 6 hours, up to 48 or more in some select cases) at an accurately regulated temperature much lower than normally used for cooking, typically around 55 to 60 °C (131 to 140 °F) for meat and higher for vegetables. The intent is to cook the item evenly, ensuring that the inside is properly cooked without overcooking the outside, and retain moisture and all flavor."
I have attached 2 pictures of it happening.
I think my questions are Taluiy
1. Can you use a parve pot if the meat is in a sealed Ziplock bag?
2. Does the machine become Fleishigs?
A. Ib’n Ezra explains the double term “Uvashel Mevushal Bamaim” in regards to Korban Pesach (Shemos 12: 9) as cooked in a vessel inside another vessel, the way kings eat.
Normally “nat bar nat” or “nossen taam bar nossen taam” which means literally "that which transfers taste which is the offspring of that which transfers taste,"such as the prohibited embedded flavor on a utensil'swalls, that was transferred by cooking into another vessel or food, because of the resulting weakness of the prohibited taste becomes now permitted.
Pischei Teshuva (Y.D. 95: 1) quotes dissenting opinions whether this also applies when the transfers are done “beshas bishul” in one single act of cooking. Chavas Da'as maintains that in such case, the prohibited flavor or meat flavor does transfer, while Yad Efraim is of the opinion that it still constitutes a nat bar nat situation and the prohibited or meat flavor weakens and does not transfer.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that in the case of cooking via sous-vide. The meat flavor will become imbedded in the plastic bag and then travel via the water into the walls of the pot. Since this is done simultaneously, in a single act of cooking one should be stringent and follow the opinion of the Chavas Da'as, considering the pot as fleishig.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/30/2016 2:18 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1165 Can Do Candles
|
|
|
Q. There are two tables in the room. I know that there were candles (and only candles) standing on one of them when Shabbos began, and the table became a bosis. However, the candles were taken away by an aino Yehudi and I don’t know which table they were on. Are both tables muktzah?
A. Placing muktza on top of an object before Shabbos turns the item underneath it muktza as well, since it becomes a Bosis (O.H. 310: 7, Mishna Berura – Introduction 308). However, that is only if the muktza was placed there with the express desire that it should lie on top of that object. For example, if one placed candles on top of a tray before Shabbos, with the intention that they remain there, the tray becomes a bosis (or base) to the candles and becomes muktza too. Poskim disagree whether it is necessary to have in mind that it should stay there until the end of Shabbos or just during “bein hashmoshos” or twilight (See O.H. 309: 4, and Mishna Berura 21).
Although the prohibition of muktza is assumed by most Poskim to be only rabbinical, in some instances we are stringent when in doubt, as we would be with a biblical prohibition. We do not necessarily follow the dictum of “Sofek derabanan lehakel”(when in doubt be lenient). Two reasons are quoted for this (Magid Mishne – Yom Tov 2: 7). We call it a “Dovor sheyesh lo mattirin,”or an item that will become permissible tomorrow, and one should rather wait and eat it when it is allowed. Also, our Sages saw fit to be stringent on muktza, since it is easy to transgress. Shemiras Shabbos K. (20: n. 7) quoting Horav Sh. Z. Auerbach zt”l, explains further that there is a difference on doubtful muktza that is consumed, in which case you should be stringent since the principle of “yesh lo matirin” applies, and when the issue is only moving it, then you can be lenient.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that if the Gentile worker was instructed before Shabbos to remove the candlestick on Shabbos or it is known that this is going to happen, following the opinions quoted above, the tables would not become bosis and could be moved.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/30/2016 1:18 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1164 Brisker Kolel Hallel
|
|
|
Q. For 20 years, I have said Hallel on Rosh Chodesh without a bracha because I heard this is the way the Brisker Rav did it. Should I change my minhag?
A. Rambam (H. Chanuka 3: 7) maintains that you recite Hallel on Rosh Chodesh without saying a brocho, since it is only a minhag and you do not recite a brocho on a minhag. His opinion is quoted in Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 422: 2), where another opinion (Rif and Rabbenu Yona) that differentiates between Hallel recited by an individual or a tzibur is also mentioned. However, Remoh (ibid.) rules like Rabbenu Tam and the Rosh that we do recite a brocho on Halel, since on many minhogim such as Yom Tov Sheni, we also say blessings. (See Tosafos Brochos 14a d.h. Yomim)
The Brisker Rov zt”l explains that the Rambam understands the brocho on Hallel as being a common brocho on a mitzva. Therefore, when Hallel is recited only as a minhag, as in Rosh Chodesh, it looses the brocho. On the other side Rosh and Tosafos maintain that Hallel is a cheftza or an article of mitzva itself, and even when it is only a minhag to be recited, it still requires a brocho. He compares Halel to how his father, Hagrach zt”l explained the brocho on learning Torah, namely that the cheftza of Torah requires a brocho.
The minhag of Brisk may be not to say a brocho on the Halel of Rosh Chodesh, following the Rambam's opinion. People who davened there relate that the chazzan said Hallel with a brocho and was motzi Horav Velvel Soloveitchik (Horav Dovid’s son the Brisker Rav’s grandson) with that brocho.
However, Remo and Mishan Berura (ibid.) rule that the tradition of Askenazim is to recite Hallel with a brocho, although it is better, when possible to say it together with a tzibur.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that a person should maintain the inherited traditions of his family and the community he belongs to.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/26/2016 1:59 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1163 How-Love Yisrael?
|
|
|
Q. 1) Why is the shitah of the Chazon Ish not spoken of more when it comes to the issue of cholov stam? Especially in today’s times where not only is tomay milk more expensive, it’s basically impossible to find and where it is found it is quoted as to being over 50 times more expensive!
In a community where cholov stam is significantly more expensive and the products are more limited would the C.I. combined with Rav Moshe be justification for bnei torah to be meikel? Thank you!
Q. 2) I live in a community where cholov yisroel is significantly more expensive (cholov stam $3 a gallon, cholov yisroel is $8 a gallon) and the availability of products is more limited. Even though some have questioned Rav Moshe's famous heter on the subject, would not the Chazon Ish's view which was seemingly lenient on the subject be a significant factor to consider in places where cholov yisroel is significantly more expensive to keep? Thank you
A. The Mishna (Avodah Zarah 35b) records that our sages forbade the consumption of milk from a kosher animal that was milked by a Gentile without (observant) Jewish supervision. The Talmud explains that this was enacted because of concerns that the non-Jew may have mixed non-kosher milk milked from non-kosher animals with the kosher milk. Poskim debate if this prohibition applies even if the Gentile has no non-kosher animals in his herd (see Mordechai Avodah Zara 826, Teshuvot Radbaz 4:1147, and S’mak 123). Some authorities are lenient only if in an entire locale non-Kosher animals are not milked. Later Poskim also disagree. Pri Chodosh (Y.D. 115:6), Chazon Ish (Y.D. 41:4), Igrois Moishe (Y.D. 1: 47), Yalkut Yosef et.al. rule leniently, whereas Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:5), Chochmas Odom (67:1), and Chassam Sofer (Y.D. 107, cited in the Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 115:3), rule strictly.
Chazon Ish (Y.D. 41: 4) relies on the opinion of the Pri Chodosh and aligns the idea of relying on the government supervision with the reasoning of the Pri Chodosh.
However, the realistic and practical Chazon Ish’s view on this matter was clarified by his brother-in-law the Staipler Gaon zt”l (Karayna D’igrassa 2: 123) namely that he was only lenient to permit frail Yeshiva students to drink powdered milk in difficult wartime years when milk was not readily available in Eretz Yisroel. Thus, the Chazon Ish essentially accepts the view of the Pri Chodosh only in case of great need. For further discussion of the Chazon Ish’s view on this issue see Benesivei Hecholov p.31.
Many other Poskim adopt the approach that government supervision is inadequate to satisfy the view of the Chasam Sofer. These include the Chelkas Yaakov (3: 37-38), Minchas Yitzchok (9: 81), and Shevet Halevi (4: 87) where he records a remarkable conversation he had with the Chazon Ish about this matter. Similarly, it is quoted that when Horav Moishe Soloveitchik zt'l mentioned to the Chazon Ish that people say he permitted cholov akum, he rejoined: “They may as well say that I permitted an Eishes Ish” (Hamaor 6: 4: p. 11)
We should note that even Rav Zvi Pesach Frank who permits powdered milk produced from non-cholov Yisrael milk, does not permit the consumption of the actual milk even though we are certain that no non-Kosher milk has been introduced because of government supervision.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion reflects the ruling of the stringent Poskim above mentioned.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/26/2016 12:35 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1162 Love Me Love My Dog?
|
|
|
Q. A friend's dog died suddenly, the family was very much attached to the dog that was with them many years and feel very devastated and crushed. Is it correct to go and visit them and console them?
What does one say to them?
Is it correct for their neighbours and friends to offer a kidush to show their care and support?
A. The Talmud (Brochos 16b) relates that when the Canaanite maidservant of Rabi Eliezer died his students came to console him, when he saw them he ascended to the upper chamber, but they ascended after him. He kept on and on trying to avoid them but they stubbornly kept following him, until he confronted them and told them: Have I not thought you that upon the death of one’s Canaanite slaves and maidservants... we do not say for them the mourners’ blessing or the mourners’ condolences. Rather what do we say for them? Just as we say to a person over his ox and his donkey that died; “Hamakom Yimaleh Chessroncha,” May Hashem replace your loss, so we do too in this case.
This Halacha is quoted both in Rambam (H. Avel 12: 12) and in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 307: 1).
Ben Yehodaya (Brochos ibid.) explains the continuous avoidance of Rabi Eliezer to meet his disciples, mentioning that he was thinking they came to offer his condolences as we normally do in a regular shiva for a close relative. Since that conduct is improper for the loss of anyone or anything else, as we are not required to visit then the afflicted. It suffices to say the words mentioned above when one encounters the distressed.
Horav Shlomo Millers Shlita opinion is that one may visit socially the devastated, suffering friends and express ones feelings of empathy and compassion by sharing in their loss, as one would after a fire or similar. Acts that would be part and parcel of the mitzvah of Veahavta Lereacha – loving another person as ourselves. However, in regards to offering a kidush, one must be careful as it could be ill-interpreted as serving it for the sake of the dead animal.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/16/2016 6:03 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1161 Uncharted Waters?
|
|
|
Q. How many seconds does one have to drink a reviis of water to make a borei nefashos? Does it make a difference if it is soda or wine? Thank you.
A. Mishna Berura (210: 1) quotes O.H. (612: 12) that in regards to drinking a reviis for the purpose of reciting a bracha achrona or compliance of a mitzvah, if one drank and stopped a bit and then drank again until he completed dinking the full reviis, it is not considered as having drank a full reviis. In Shaarei Tzion (ibid. 11) he mentions that most people drink a reviis while stopping once and it is still counted as one single act. He also quotes the opinion of the Gr”a that maintains that when drinking we also use the same time measure we use when eating solid food. Namely, the time it takes to consume a prass measure of bread, which can be from two to nine minutes, following the opinion of different Poskim. Mishna Berura (ibid.) maintains that in regards to drinking hot tea and coffee, which is consumed slowly, the established minhag is not like the Gr”as' opinion and we do not recite the bracha achrona after drinking done within achilas prass. He also mentions that it is proper to leave a reviis in the cup until it cools enough to be drunk as required, and then recite the last bracha. (Shaarei Teshuva ibid. disagrees).
Hagadah Kol Dodi (20: 11) rules that the above applies only to unsweetened wine, that people consume in two sips. However, sweet wine and other drinks, people may drink a reviis in one single sip. He also explains that sipping the drink into ones mouth is not the same as swallowing, which may require a few more gulps for swallowing a full reviis.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that you may relay on the Gr”as' opinion if you include other doubtful conditions such as the shiur or amount that constitutes a reviis. E.g., although normally we maintain the smallest reviis shiur to be 86cc (approximately three ounces), for the purpose of bracha achrona even two ounces or 58 cc, would suffice when consumed in one or two sips, if also a regular reviis (86 cc) was drunk within a three or four minutes period. Alternatively, one should consume an olive sized solid food (approximately 28 grams) and recite Bore Nefashos on both the solid and the liquid.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/16/2016 1:42 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1160 Watch That Closed Door
|
|
|
Q. Is a Jewish man permitted to seclude himself with a non-Jewish woman together with a non-Jewish man, or non-religious Jewish man?
A. Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 22: 2) mentions that Shamai and Hilel prohibited seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. Poskim disagree whether a Gentile or a non-religious man qualify as shomrim or watchers. Some are lenient (See Pischei Teshuva E.H. 22: 2, Shov Yaakov 2: 19, Erech Shai 5, Zechor Leavrohom 2: 10, Chazon Ish 35) while some are stringent (Noda Beyehuda 1: 69, Yam Shel Shlomo 21)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that in need you can be lenient.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/16/2016 1:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1159 All Rise
|
|
|
Q. When a Talmid Chacham or an elder is unaware of the honour given to him, (he is facing another direction) is it better to make him aware?
A. Horav Shlomo Millers Shlita opinion is that in general there is no need to make the recipient of the honour aware that you are standing for him or honouring him, unless he needs to benefit emotionally from that knowledge; e.g. to rise his depressed spirit.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/16/2016 1:34 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1158 It's An Honour
|
|
|
Q. Do you have to honour and stand up for an elderly Talmid Hacham that is senile or blind and is not aware of the honour you are giving him?
A. Ginas Verodim (Y.D. 4: 2),Birkey Yosef (Y,D, 244: 2), Rabi Akiva Eiger ztl (Y.D. 240: 7), Ben Ish Chai (Ki Tetze 15) et. al. rule regarding the blind, that one has to honour them even if they are unaware of the respect given. Poskim maintain that it is similar to embarrassing the blind which is prohibited (Bava Kama 86b). Derech Sicha (P. 374) asserts that the same applies to the elderly or ill, who are oblivious to the treatment given to them.
Horav Shlomo Millers Shlita opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/16/2016 1:30 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1157 What's cooking?
|
|
|
Q. Is microwave cooking included in bishul akum?
A. Poskim debate whether cooking food in a microwave oven is included in the prohibition of Bishul Akum.
In regards to the prohibition of bishul on Shabbos, Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (quoted in Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchoso 1:127) maintains that microwave cooking is only rabbinically prohibited, while Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe 3:52) rules that since microwave cooking is a common form of cooking, it is biblically forbidden.
In regards to bishul akum 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.
If the food was already fully cooked by a Jew, all agree that a Gentile may re-heat it in a microwave oven.
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.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/14/2016 11:05 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1156 Don't Let Smoke Get In Your Eyes
|
|
|
Q. According to Rav Shlomo Miller, if a goy cooks meat... by steam or hot smoke is it bishul akum?
A. Rambam (Maachalos Asuros 17: 17) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 113: 13) rule that food smoked by a Gentile does not constitute bishul akum. Remoh (ibid.) adds that this includes preserved foods, since the prohibition applies only to cooked by fire comestibles. Poskim debate whether steam is also exempt. Darkei Teshuva (Y.D. 113: 16, quotes the opinions of the opinions of the Shem Aryeh and Zer Zahav. Proponents of the lenient view argued that steaming is analogous to smoking and not to cooking, since the food is not directly cooked through means of a fire. Another argument for leniency was that since the steaming of foods was first introduced many centuries after Chazal forbade bishul akum, steaming was not a form of cooking that was included in the original decree. Seridei Eish,(2:138), Yabia Omer (5:Y.D. 9) and Mishne Halachos (2: 2: 17) also maintain that steaming is not included within the parameters of the Bishul Akum decree. Other Poskim differentiate between food cooked directly by steam in a steam chamber or if cooked in a pressured container when already canned, using superheated steam. In the last case after all the food is being cooked in the heated liquid inside the can and should be prohibited. (Teshuvos Vehanhagos Y.D 382).
The above is essential in understanding the debate whether canned tuna, salmon, sardines etc. are included in the bishul akum gezeira, although there are other mitigating factors involved. Such as the radically new production methods and equipment completely different from the normal household cooking utensils, that did not exist in the days of Chazal and should therefore not be included in the prohibition. (Minchas Yitzchok (3: 26: 6). Additionally, Horav Moshe Feinstein, zt“l is quoted (Mesorah,Vol.1.) as ruling that there is no prohibition of bishul akum if the non-Jewish cook is unknown to the consumer, since eating this factory prepared food item would not lead to any socialization and eventual intermarriage.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that one can be lenient in using smoke as a source of heat for cooking with it. However in regards to steam one should be stringent when possible. In need you may rely on the Poskim that are lenient.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/12/2016 1:44 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1155 Cutting a Covenant?
|
|
|
Q. Why is a covenant called “krisas bris” or “cutting off,” when what you are actually doing is creating agreement and harmony between the partners of the treaty?
A. The Gaon of Vilna (perush on Sefer Hayetzira 1: 8) questions why the expression “Kerissas Bris,” or the severing of a pact or treaty, is the name commonly used to connote the establishing of a covenant. This term expresses an obvious contradiction. Bris means unity and oneness while Kerissa evinces cutting and separation. He explains that a true everlasting covenant, survives even when the parties separated and grew apart. It is created when the sides in agreement give away to the other something of crucial value of themselves, something they cannot and will never forget. Avraham Avinu conveys to Hashem his most valued possession, the life of his son Yitzchak; while Hashem bestows to His people His most precious asset, the Torah itself.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 9/2/2016 9:28 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1154 Oy Gevalt! - There Are Shooting Each Other!
|
|
|
Q. A recently married relative of mine wanted to know if he and his wife can shoot each other with Nerf guns when she is a niddah (my kids gave them that as a wedding present). I know in Rav Eider's book in section V B 4 he brings a machlokes between Rav Moshe and the Be'er Moshe about ping pong. And I recall hearing Rabbi Sobolofsky give a shiur on YUtorah where he considered maybe ping pong would be OK because you're not actually passing one to the other - your intention is to hit it away from the person (in the end he may have sided with Rav Moshe anyway about tzchok and kalus rosh). With Nerf guns your intention is to aim towards the person, but you're not really passing to them, rather shooting at them. So I guess there are two issues - is it passing? And/or is it kalus rosh? Is kalus rosh context dependent like Rav Eider has in note 38, when she is bmatzav choleh ruach it is OK, because he does not intend for tzchok but to help remove her ruach?
Thanks.
A. Indeed, Beer Moshe (1: 50: 5) after describing in detail the workings of ping-pong, permits playing it during the niddus period, while Hilchos Niddah (2 p. 137) quotes (mipi hashmuah) that Rav Moshe Feinstein’s zt’l opinion was to be stringent not only in playing ping pong but also in handball and tennis. Similarly, Chut Hashoni (Y.D. 195: 1: 4) permits for a husband and wife during the period of niddus, to engage in games similar to chess, Chanuka dreidl or the like. However, he warns to abstain from any other games or activities that may cause levity and light-heartedness.
Pischei Niddah (2: 28: A: n.4) mentions that; “one should avoid playing these games, unless one feels that playing that diversion would have a beneficial effect.”
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that Nerf guns are more frivolous an activity than the other games mentioned above, which at least qualify as a sport. He suggests that one should rather avoid this particular activity and find another less giddy, to help perk-up and elevate the spirits of a spouse.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/23/2016 9:52 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1153 Not In My Prayer-Book?
|
|
|
Q. The following question occurred to me last Friday night:
In the ezras nashim, there is an English siddur that I need to daven. (All the other siddurim are in Hebrew). There is a sign saying that one should not remove any siddurim from the ezras nashim, as they were donated to be used in the ezras nashim only. Is it OK for me to borrow the siddur to daven in the beis medrash for 10 or so minutes and then put it right back to the ezras nashim, if it will be impossible for me to daven otherwise?
Presumably, if the person who donated the siddurim would know that it’s impossible for me to daven without this siddur, he would say it’s OK to use it for 10 minutes and he wouldn’t mind.
A. Remah (O.H. 14: 4) maintains that in regards to seforim the rule of “A person is pleased when someone complies with a mitzvah using his property” does not apply. Therefore, you cannot use a book without the owner’s permission, since we are concerned that the reader my tear the sefer when he uses it. Mishna Berura (14: 16) asserts that this applies also to sidurim even for an occasional use. He adds that although people are accustomed to use sidurim and machzorim that belong to others, he does not comprehend why.
Piskei Teshuvos (14: 10) quoting Likutey Mahariach, Minchas Yitzchok (7: 130,) Kaf Hachaim, (14: 31), Lehoros Nossan (6: 127-128), stresses that the above applied to former days, when printing was costly, but not in our times, when seforim and sidurim are relatively inexpensive, accessible and are constantly being donated.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is similar and one can safely assume that the donator of the sidurim or the gabayim of the shul would be agreeable if anyone who needs them uses them, as long as he returns the to the ezras noshim. The Rov added that this applies only if there are enough sidurim for the use of the women, if present.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/21/2016 11:24 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1152 Stam a Scam
|
|
|
Hi,
Q. My wife inherited an apartment in Beit Shemesh when her father was niftar. We rented out the apartment a few months ago and never received any rent from the tenants. My wife went to England to help her mother move and while there she emailed the tenants asking what's happening with the rent. They said they sent the money to the account we sent them. The account was somewhere in Wisconsin, I believe, and the name was Mary. It turned out their email was hacked into and whoever read the emails sent emails from their account, not ours, asking for the money right away. He said it didn't sound like my wife talking but decided to send the money anyway to the account in Wisconsin, not Toronto. He was taken advantage of in a scam and doesn't want to pay us the first 2 month's rent.
I'm asking if halachikally they still have to pay us, since it was by his negligence and not calling us when he thought something sounded fishy with the emails and paid anyway.
Thanks so much.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that hypothetically you are correct, and the renter still owes you the rent. However, the Rov maintains in principle that it is incorrect to adjudicate monetary cases when only one opinion is presented, as the renter may offer a totally different scenario. He recommends applying to a Beis Din, who would hear both sides.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/19/2016 1:49 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1151 Seller Beware
|
|
|
Q. On a related matter, is it permissible for a mocher seforim to sell Mezzuzot to non-Jews who are trying to live as Bnai Noach?
Thank you,
A. See question above (1150). Remah (Y.D. 291: 2) rules that one should not sell a mezuzah to a Gentile unless there is a concern of creating enmity and promoting hate. Although Maharil prohibits even in such a situation, many Poskim side with the ruling of the Remah (Be’er Sheva 36, Sheilas Ya’avetz 2: 122, Yalkut Yosef - Kivud Av Vaem 6: 15)
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that one should avoid when possible selling mezuzos to Gentiles unless he is afraid he may be creating enmity as above mentioned or that he may be charged with a human rights violation. He should also be very alert and make certain that the buyer does not belong to a proselytizing cult that uses the mezuzos as a tool for attracting and perverting the uninformed. He should also make sure that the recipient is aware of the inherent holiness of the mezuzah and plans to use it with respect and decorum. The mocher seforim, may also want to inquire whether the Gentile buyer is not part of a mixed marriage or is a partner with a Jew on the property where the mezuzah is to be affixed.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/17/2016 6:00 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 1150 Best Keep Secret
|
|
|
Bs"d
Q. I have been asked by a number of Bnai Noach if it is permissible for them to put up a Mezzuza on their front door. If there is a nafka mina between the front door which is public and inside of the apartment or house, which is private, would the inside be permissible if the outside isn't?
A. Although Rambam (Perush Hamishnayos – Terumos 3: 9, H. Melochim 10: 10) teaches that a Ben Noach is rewarded with some remuneration for observing the mitzvos he was not ordained to do, he should abstain from the ones that carry kedusha and tahara, such as tefilin, Sefer Torah and mezuzah. (Ridvaz ibid.)
Minchas Kino’os (9: 35) quotes Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 1: 1) that Rebbi sent Artaban a mezuzah with the intention of providing some security and protection for him. (It is of interest that Yerushalmi Avoda Zarah 2: 1, says in the future Bnai Noach will accept all mitzvos including mezuzah).
Veshav Verofo (Y.D. 58) quotes Rav Ovadya Yosef zt’l as permitting placing a mezuzah in a Ben Noach’s house, when one knows that he will honour it properly.
However, Yalkut Yosef (Kivud Av Va'em 6: 15) mentions that if an ill Gentile father asks his son to place a mezuzah on his door for protection, he should abstain.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that if the Noahide is careful to honour the mezuzah properly, he may place it in the inner rooms, but not on the outside of the entrance door.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/16/2016 4:55 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
