|
|
|
|
Have a question? Send it in! Questions are answered by Rabbi Bartfeld.
|
|
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
|
|
|
|
|
# 823 Nu! a Lender Be
|
|
|
Q. If thirty days is the time for repayment for borrowing money. If I lend an object such a tool or a book is the term also 30 days?
A. Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 73: 1) rules that the thirty day period for repayment applies only to money which is given to spend or invest and not to have exactly the same coins, bills or checks returned. However, when it comes to lending objects the thirty day rule does not apply. Mishna Berura (307: 42) rules accordingly. Miktzoa BaTorah (73: 3) depend the rule of thirty days only on the language used, which customarily is in Hebrew “halva'a” for currency loans, while “shailah” is wont for lending objects. According to his opinion if the expression halva'a was used for objects the thirty day rule will take effect and it will not even for currency if the term “shaila” was mentioned. However, in English where there is no grammatical distinction for these two actions, it all depends on the case and the local custom. (See also Pischei Mishpat ibid. 2)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that in regards to borrowing objects, obviously some such a car, some tools or a pen are to be returned immediately after finishing their use, while on books that one reads from cover to cover, the lending period is longer.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 7/2/2015 11:23 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 822 Pringles Do Grow From the Ground?
|
|
|
Pringles Do Grow From the Ground?
Q. Good morning Rabbi Bartfeld,
Attached is the Daf Hakashrus with article on bracha on pringles.
Could you please clarify with Rav Miller what is the correct Bracha?
Thank you,
A. The article provided is from Rabbi Eli Gersten published on the Daf Hakashrus of June 2015. It addresses the proper bracha for Pringles and other such foods that are primarily made from potato flakes and potato flour
It mentions the following; “Rav Belsky, Shlita said, that originally Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l held that on potato flakes one should say Shehakol. When potatoes are turned into powder, they lose their status as a vegetable; therefore even after they are reconstituted they remain Shehakol. Rema (O.C. 202:7) explains that if a fruit or vegetable is pulverized to the point that it is no longer distinguishable, then it loses its bracha. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 208:8) says that the proper bracha to be said on corn or bean bread is Shehakol. Based on this psak the Daf HaKashrus (Vol. 22, No. 5, p.32) printed that the bracha on Pringles is Shehakol.
However, Rav Belsky more recently clarified, that in later years Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l reversed his position, and said that since reconstituted potato flakes are a common equivalent substitute for mashed potatoes, it is not considered as though they have lost their shape and form, and the bracha on reconstituted potato flakes remains Ha’adamah. Rav Elimelech Bluth,Shlita and Rav Reuven Feinstein, Shlita confirmed hearing this change of psak from Rav Moshe zt”l as well. Therefore, Pringles
though they are made from reconstituted potatoes, would be the same as though they were made from fresh mashed potatoes, and the proper bracha would be Ha’adamah.
However, it is worth noting that potato starch does not reconstitute back into a potato, and therefore products that are made from potato starch are Shehakol.”
It should be mentioned that Ohr Somayach in its Ask the Rabbi feature cites that Jerusalem's Rabbi Meir Bransdorfer, shlita, ruled that the bracha for Pringles is Shehakol. However, in Halachos of Brachos Rabbi Bodner writes, that Horav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt”l ruled that since Pringles have the appearance of a potato after they are made from the dehydrated potatoes, a hoadama should be made.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that the correct brocho for Pringles in indeed Hoadomo.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/29/2015 11:17 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 821 Keeping Shloishim?
|
|
|
Q. Thank you so much for answering my previous questions, I have a few more.
I was in shul and someone borrowed a hundred dollars so he could pay for his overdue aliyos. I understood that he would repay it a.s.a.p. the next day. When I asked him then for the money he said he has 30 days to repay, is that correct?
A. Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 73: 1) rules that only when there is no established custom the rule of thirty days for repayment applies, otherwise whatever the common local practice is will take effect. Ritvo (Makos 3b) maintains that it is not the way of people to borrow money and repay it immediately or the next day, but that may not be true for small amounts. Mishna Berura (307: 42) quotes Magen Avrohom (ibid.) that in his location money loans were collected immediately.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that when in doubt as to what the local tradition is, the thirty day rule will apply.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:49 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 820 Tovel or not Tovel, That is the Shaila
|
|
|
Q. What if I'm invited to someones house and I'm not sure if they toveled their dishes, can you eat there?
Thank you. Have a nice day and Shabbat Shalom.
A. In general people who are considered Torah observant maintain a chazaka ok kashrus, meaning that we may assume that they practice all mitzvos in a proper fashion, unless we know otherwise.
In this particular case, even if you became aware that the utensils were not immersed in a mikva,
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that in need you may still eat on that venue, since the obligation of tevilas kelim rests on the owner of the utensils and not on the user. This is similar to the permitted entering into someones house that does not have mezuzos installed. The responsibility of placing mezuzos lays on the owner.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:46 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 819 Glat But Not Pure
|
|
|
Q. What happens if one uses (dishes or utensils) that were not toveled (immersed in a mikva)?
Can you eat the food?
A. According to Tosafos (Avoda Zara 75b – d'h vechulan) it is a Tannaic dispute in the Talmud (ibid.) if after the fact of someone cooking or using non-immersed utensils, the contained food becomes prohibited rabbinically, as a measure of precaution for avoiding the usage of all non-kosher utensils. Some authorities maintain that it may even be a biblical injunction (Or Zarua 293 and others)
Halacha follows the opinion that it is permitted (Rema Y.D. 120: 16) Yabia Omer (Y.D. 2) rules that although the food is permitted, it should be removed immediately from the non-toveled container
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:43 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 818 Shalal Dunk
|
|
|
Q. BS"D, Dear Rabbi Bartfeld, Regarding toveling of dishes, utensils, I see nowhere in the Torah, midrash, tanach etc. to tovel dishes, I think that this is strictly a rabbinic law.
Can you please answer why we have to tovel dishes?
A. The Talmud (Avoda Zara 75b) deduces the mitzva of immersing utensils used for food consumption from the posuk on Parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31: 23) relating to the booty taken from the Midianites; “Everything that comes into the fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure”, Though the addition of the redundant word “Vetaher” the Torah added another type of purification besides purging (koshering from prohibited foods imbedded in the utensil), namely tevila. The Talmud presents there an additional source for tevilas kelim, namely from the words: “B'mei nida ischata,” (ibid.) and explains the need for the two sources. The obligation to immerse kelim in a mikva is recorded by the Rambam (M’aacholos Assuros 17: 3, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 120 : 1, and in virtually any Halacha sefer dealing on the topic.
Most Poskim maintain that the mitzvah is biblical, at least for metal utensils, since it is inferred from the above verse. (Rashi Avoda Zara ibid., Tosafot ibid. Smak 199, Or Zarua 288 – 293, Raved, Ramban, Rashbo, Ritva on Talmud ibid, et. al.) Some Poskim, however, opine that tevilas kelim is only Rabbinical (Rambam ibid., Tosafot Rid on Talmud above, Orchos chaim 2: p. 154 et. al.)
Talmud Yerushalmi (Avoda Zara 5: 15) explains that the reason for the immersion of utensils acquired from Gentiles is to spiritually elevate the items originated in a domain that does not observe the mitzvos or maintains the holiness of the Torah, to a realm that does. Ritva (Avoda Zara 75b) quoting Ramban, compares the process as similar to the conversion of a ger to Judaism, it also demands tevila.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:41 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 817 Grandfather Enclosed
|
|
|
Q. If my father tells me do something that contradicts the will of my grandfather (his father), who do I listen to?
A. Rema (Y.D. 240: 24) mentions the opinion of Maharik that one is not obligated to honor his grandfather. However his ruling is that he is, but the honor to a father supersedes the grandfather. Torah Lishma and Teshuva Mehava (1: 178) explain that honoring grandparents is only rabbinical obligation while honoring parents is a biblical commandment. Chelkas Yaakov (Y.D. 135) rules that if both his father and grandfather are present and demand something from him, he should heed his grandfather, since both he and his father are obligated to honor the grandfather (See also Responsa Rabi Akiva Eiger (1: 68) for a similar opinion. Sheilas Yavetz however (2: 129) disagrees.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlt”a opinion is that there are many other variants to this question and additional fact information is necessary in order to establish priority. In some instances there may be no obligation to honor either one, as when it conflicts with mitzvos.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:33 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 816 Chery-Pick Shaila
|
|
|
Q. If you do make Shechecheyanu on the cherries, should you wait until Shabbat or the sooner you make the brocho the better?
Thank you
A. Mishna Berura (250: 2) quotes from the Talmud (Beitza 16a), a dispute between Shamai and Hilel. Shamai understood the posuk (Shemot 20:8) "Remember the Shabbos to keep it holy" to mean that one should start putting aside food for Shabbos even at the beginning of week. His eating experience was always geared towards the honor of Shabbos, for if he would come into possession of a good animal, he would set it aside for the Shabbos meal; but if he would later find an even better animal, he would eat the first and set aside the second for the Shabbos seuda.
By contrast, Hilel believed that, because of his deep faith in Hashem, he would be furnished with a festive meal for Shabbos even if he would not put aside the good animal at the beginning of the week. Instead, he would eat it right away.
Mishna Berura (ibid.) writes that many Poskim understand that Hilel himself would in principle agree that Shamai's view is the preferred one for most people. It was only his unusually strong emuna in Hashem that made possible his position.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that even if he were to recite shehecheyanu it is better to eat the fruit now than to wait for Shabbos, unless it is required then, as would be on the second night of Rosh Hashono.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:30 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 815 Enjoying the Fruit of Your Labor
|
|
|
Q. I have a few cherry trees in my back yard and we are now harvesting the new fruits. Do you make a Shecheyanu Bracha on them since you can find cherries all year round? Is the fact that they are dear to me since I planted the trees and rejoice on collecting the fruits of my labor enough reason to bless shecheyanu?
A. Mishna Berura (225: 18) rules that on does not recite shehecheyanu on seasonal fruits that can be stored and kept fresh all year round, unless there is a significant difference between the fresh ones and the ones kept in store (See also Piskey Teshuvos 225: 2)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that the fact that one has an emotional attraction to the fruits he himself farmed and rejoices eating them, is not enough of a reason to recite shehecheyanu, unless they are significant better or different than the ones available all the time.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/26/2015 3:24 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 814 Waiting for Redemption
|
|
|
Q. A woman gave birth to a baby boy in Yerushalayim on Sunday night י"ג סיון, fifteen minutes after shkia. At the time of the Pidyon Haben the parents and baby will be iy"h in Lakewood. According to the shita that Pidyon Haben is after 29 days 12 hrs etc. the zman of pidyon will be either Tuesday morning (י"ג תמוז) or Monday night (taking into consideration the 7 hr difference between EY and the US). According to the opinion that one waits until day 31, the pidyon would be either Tuesday or Wednesday. The shaila is, being that delaying the pidyon to the next day would constitute a ביטול מצוות עשה, when is the proper time to do the pidyon? In the event that the pidyon is pushed until Wednesday, is it proper to wait until after Chatzos to do the pidyon as many are נוהג?
A. Most Poskim maintain that the pidyon haben should be done on the thirty first day (Mishna Berura 339: 27 et. al.), since he was born during the shkiah we would have to wait for the later day. See also Betzel Hachochmo (1: 75-76) who avers that when the bechor travels by different time zones, where days may be longer or shorter, we wait until thirty complete days have passed on the bechor himself. Other Poskim remain in doubt. (Sheorim Hametzuyonim 164: 6, Yisroel Vehazmanim 21)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that to comply with the different doubts and rulings the pidyon should be done on Wednesday morning. He maintains that there is no need to delay after chatzos to do it berov am or with a larger crowd.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/19/2015 5:31 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 813 A Stirring Shailah
|
|
|
Q. I recently heard in Rav Miller's name that there is no איסור
הגסה (prohibition of stirring) in a crock
pot even before removing the insert as long as the food is
(completely cooked) מבושל כל צרכו. I found this
quite surprising, is this accurate?
A. Mishna Berura (318: 113) quotes Beis Yosef who permits extracting well cooked food from a pot still on the fire, although Eliahu Rabba is stringent. In regards to stirring he quotes in n. 118 and in Sharei Tzion (ibid. 136) the Kol Bo that thorough mixing of well cooked food is prohibited when the pot is still on the fire. However, Chazon Ish (Shabbos 37: 15) permits when the fire was left uncovered and therefore the pot cannot be removed, since one will not be able to return it to the fire. Igrois Moshe (O.H. 4: 74: 9) is stringent even in regards to stirring a heavy pot that cannot be easily removed from the fire. The reason quoted is that there may be left small still uncooked pieces in the pot.
In regards to a crock pot, Thirty Nine Melochos (2: p. 646) permits extracting from it when left without separation of the insert, as one would not be able to return it to the crock pot.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that when the food is already well cooked, even when the pot is still on the fire, non-extraction constitutes a distant stringency since stirring crock pots is not a common way of cooking and the presence of small still uncooked pieces is unusual. Therefore one may extract food from the crock pot itself and when needed for food removal, perform also light stirring.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/19/2015 5:29 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 812 Safe Flyers
|
|
|
Q. Re- on question; When a deceased is being transported from Canada for burial in Israel, is it permitted or advisable to delay the kevura for the sake of a safer Halacha environment for the Cohanim travelling on the same air plane to Israel? El Al provides a Halacha recommended caskets for minimizing the tumah prohibition involved.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that indeed it is correct to delay the kevura and fly by El Al in order to avoid or at least minimize the inherent prohibitions for the Cohanim on board by using the special caskets they provide. The above is usually not available when travelling with another airline.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/19/2015 5:23 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 811 Medical Dressings
|
|
|
Q. I am a patient in hospital. I am usually dressed in hospital issue clothing, which consists of a shirt and trousers, basically pajamas. I put my tzitzis on over my shirt in the daytime.
There is a shul in the hospital. If I was home, I would be horrified to be in shul in pajamas. May I enter the hospital shul in my hospital pajamas and daven, or is it better to daven in my room (without a minyan, etc.) It somehow seems to be a bizayon for the kedushah of the Beis HaKneses to be there in pajamas. And just because my body is sick, does my soul need to become desensitized to the need to show reverence for He Who dwells there?
A. Shulchan Aruch (98: 4) opines that one should don befitting and pleasant, dedicated clothing for engaging in tefila, similar to the use of special clothing by the Cohen when performing service at the Beis Hamikdash.
However when that requisite directly conflicts with the necessity to daven in a shul with a minyan, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a maintains that the minyan and shul requirement preempts the clothing prerequisite. He recommended that the patient wear a befitting robe, akin to what people often use even for davening, commonly known as a house bekeshe or similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/19/2015 5:20 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 810 No-Name Bracha
|
|
|
Q. Re- last questions Someone that davens nusach Ashkenaz-Sefard (Chasidish) is he obligated to answer Omain after Mekadeish Shmoi Berabim, when there is no mention of Hashem's name?
If he is not obligated, is he allowed to answer Omain at the conclusion of that bracha? How about Boruch Sheptaruni that people recite without the Shem?
A. As mentioned in prior question Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 215: 2) rules that one is obligated to answer omein after hearing a brocho. However Poskim rule that this incumbency is limited to a brocho that contains at least one of Hashem's names.
Shaarei Efraim (4: 25) rules that in places where the bar-mitzva blessing of baruch sheptarani is said without mentioning Hashem's name, omein is usually omitted, although it could still be said.
So it would seem from the fact that one answers omein at the end of birchas hazimun after the meals (Shulchan Aruch O.H. 198: 1) or after the chorachamons of birchas hamozon.
Betzel Hachochmo (5: 89 and 90) differentiates between brochos. The ones that were established from the onset to be recited with Hashem's name, if the name was omitted there is no point in saying omein although it is still permitted. The above applies also to doubtful brochos where Hashem's name is omitted. Another category would be brochos that were constituted to be recited without Hashem's name, on these one should answer omein after them.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar, he added that one may answer omein to these brochos as one should after hearing any blessing. brocho or tefila said by or to an individual.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/12/2015 6:27 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 809 In Heavens Name
|
|
|
Q. If I hear someone make a bracha, perhaps the chazan in shul, and he mispronounces Hashem's Name as is unfortunately common, either by saying Adinoi or Adeenoi, instead of Ado-noi,
3) May one say Boruch Hu Uvoruch Shemo after the mispronounced Name?
4) Or is it perhaps forbidden to bless such a name?
A. Answering “Boruch Hu Uvoruch Shemo” after hearing Hashem's name in a brocho is not mentioned in the Talmud, however, it became tradition in many communities, but not all. Therefore it is omitted when one is in the middle of a prayer he may not interrupt.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a pointed out, as an example, that those who follow Brisker minhogim do not answer that praise at all. As mentioned in prior question (808), after the fact one complies with a brocho that contains one of Hashem's mispronounced names, therefore, one may also answer this corresponding praise.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/12/2015 2:55 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#808 Omain in Vain?
|
|
|
Q. If I hear someone make a bracha, perhaps the chazan in shul, and he mispronounces Hashem's Name as is unfortunately common, either by saying Adinoi or Adeenoi, instead of Ado-noi, I have four (see next shaile) questions:
1) Is one obligated to say Omein at the conclusion of that bracha?
2) If he is not obligated, may he answer Omein at the conclusion of that bracha?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 215: 2) rules that one is obligated to answer omein after hearing a brocho. How much of the brocho he has to listen to in order to answer, is debated by the Poskim. Mishna Berura (ibid. 6) seems to agree with the opinion (Eliahu Rabba and Chaye Adam) that just listening to the end qualifies, as long as one knows what brocho was said.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 4) also avers that when reciting an unneeded brocho (and obviously one in vain), no omein should be answered. Biur Halocho (ibid.) maintains that when in doubt answering omein is not obligatory, but could be said.
Mishna Berura (214: 4) also maintains that even if one omitted totally one of the two names of Hashem recited in most brochos, he complies with the brocho after the fact. In Shaarei Tzion (ibid. 2 and 3) he further explains that even mentioning one of the other seven names or a name in another language is also bedieved enough.
Piskei Teshuvos (1: 5: 6) quotes from Nimukei Orach Chaim, that although one should be very careful to pronounce Hashem's names correctly, articulating the daled of A-doinoi with a chirik, sounding as A-dinoi, may be acceptable after the fact.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that all individuals, but specially the sh'liach tzibur should see to pronounce properly every word of the tefila and particularly every one of Hashem's names, however, in your case, omein should be answered, since one complies with the brocho after the fact.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/12/2015 2:46 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 807 Prohibited Ta'am Kiker
|
|
|
Q. Is it correct that when lo alenu an ambulance comes to pick up a sick person or there is an emergency such as a fire, the passersby and curious neighbors all concentrate to watch the pain and misfortune of another person at the time they may be very sensitive and add embarrassment and humiliation to their hurt? Should not the Rabbis educate the olam on this important issue?
A. Indeed Poskim rule sharply against those who out of offensive curiosity and nosiness, congregate around a victim or his property in times of distress. Kehilos Ya'a kov (Baba Basra 5) explains that chezek reiah or damage done by gawking or staring into someones property involves three different issues; damage done to the individual, to his property and the prohibition of inflicting pain or embarrassment.
Chashukei Chemed (Baba Basra 60a) and Mishpetei Sholom (p. 83) add that if our Sages permitted Biblical prohibitions for the sake of settling down the mind of the endangered ill, (O.H. 320: 1) certainly the one who causes anguish and distress to the afflicted, transgresses severely.
Chasukei Chemed further rules that all unnecessary spectators and gawkers including children should be removed immediately and instructed that if they are truly concerned for the welfare of the stricken, they should promptly recite Tehilim for them somewhere else.
Sidras Hamidos (p. 165) points out to the Mishna in Avos (4: 23) "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: do not attempt to see (your fellow) at the time of his ruin (or downfall – kilkeloso)." Although, “kilkeloso” is interpreted by Rashi, Bartenura and others as sinfulness, Beis Avos and others translate the term as misfortune.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/5/2015 6:22 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 806 Good Grief
|
|
|
Q. If one is in the year of aveilus, is he permitted to buy A) a cottage to be used as a vacation home or B) any other investment property that may also serve as a vacation home?
Thank you
A. The period of avelus for one's parents, based on the obligation to honor them, extends to twelve months in regards to attending festive occasions and even for wearing new clothes (Remo 389: 3). Da'as Kedoshim (7) rules that making new clothes is also forbidden not just wearing the new clothes.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that if the main reason of the buying of the cottage is to have a good, usable investment while owning a functional vacation home too, it is permitted. However, if one is not very concerned about the investments value, rather the primary purpose of the purchase is for the use of it as a vacation facility, one should avoid buying it during the year of mourning.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/5/2015 1:45 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 805 Family Discount
|
|
|
Q. What if he (one being paid for reciting kadish – see prior question 802) has to say kadish for his own parent?
A. Chelkas Ya'akov (3: 157) rules that one is allowed to accept the kadish recitation for someone else at the same time he is already saying for his parent. He recommends to use part of the money received to purchase additional candles for the benefit of the soul of his departed father. However, he advises not to continue reciting into the twelfth month after the demise of his parent, as that would be insulting to the memory of his progenitor. (See Kol Bo on Avelus p.376, Mourning in Halacha p.363).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that the obligation of a son is to recite at least one kadish per tefilah. If he has complied with that, any additional available kadesishim could be said for other deceased.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/5/2015 1:42 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 804 You Get What You Pay For?
|
|
|
Q. I recently heard in the Daf that one of the Gedolim (I think it was Rav Shternbuch) recommended to say in the mi sheberach after one gets an aliya and offers to give a donation, the word “Lekesheyiten” or “Baabur Sheyiten” instead of “baabur shenodar” since once he says beli neder, there is no neder and no motivation for him to pay the neder anymore, unless the brocho depends on his actual giving. Does Rav Shlomo agree? Can one change the already established Mi Sheberach nusach?
A. Teshuvos Vehanhogos (2: 476) rules that even when someone clearly states at the time of donating for a mi sheberach that this is done beli neder – without an oath, he is still liable to pay the tzdaka he accepted on himself. Therefore, he implemented that the gabay should mention that the brocho will commence at the time he delivers the monies he committed to.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that one should maintain the established nusach of the mi sheberach.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/5/2015 1:35 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
