Hataras Nedarim On Challah - Shelach 5771

In Yore Dai’a 323 we find a Halacha in Hafrashas Challah which is of great use to Rabbanim.  Very often someone calls a Rav with the following Shaila. The woman calls and says that I separated Challah and I am making my Challahs and now I don’t see the dough that I separated for Hafrashas Challah. The Challah dough must have been mixed back into the dough and it is in one of my Challahs and I can’t identify which is the dough that was separated and made holy and I can’t eat. I can’t distinguish that from the rest of the Challah, what should I do? 

In Siman 323 we find that the Din of Hataras Nedarim which allows a person to be Mattir Neder, to let a person who made a vow and cause it to become abrogated and dissolved that applies also to Kedusha.

Setting Kedusha with words and establishing Kedusha through words, those words can also become nullified by Hataras Nedarim, and that is what we do. It has happened that a woman calls with a Shaila to the Yeshiva and I have taken two other people from the Yeshiva to her home and done Hataras Nedarim. 

Today I would like to deal with a few of the Geshmake Kashas that are dealt with in this Shaila of being Mattir Neder for Hafrashas Challah.  

The Chasam Sofer in Yore Dai’a at the end of Siman 320 asks a great Kasha. How can I go and be Mattir Neder. A woman that separated Challah and now because the Challah became mixed into the rest of the dough which would make all the Challahs prohibited, they would all have to be thrown out. So I am going and being Mattir Neder. When I am Mattir Neder I am causing retroactively that the Challah was never Challah because all Hataras Nedarim works in a retroactive way.  If so, it turns out that the Beracha that she made when separating the Challah, Asher Kidishanu B’mitzvosav V’tzivanu L’hafrish Challah or as some say L’hafrish Challah Min Ha’isa, that Beracha that was made initially now becomes a Beracha Levatala, because it turns out that she didn’t separate Challah when she retroactively nullifies the separation of the Challah and then the Beracha is a Beracha Levatala. You can’t nullify a Beracha. The Chasam Sofer therefore asks how can you be Mattir Neder on separating Challah, aren’t you causing a Beracha Levatalah which is a worse Aveira then throwing out all the Challahs.

The Chasam Sofer says a Lomdishe Teretz that it is not a Beracha Levatalah because the language of the Beracha is Asher Kidishanu B’mitzvosav V’tzivanu L’hafrish Challah, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu commanded us with his Mitzvos and commanded us to separate Challah.

That Beracha the Chasam Sofer Teitches is a Mitzvah to separate Challah according to the rules of the Torah. In other words, when I make a dough I have a Mitzvah to separate some dough and cause that to become Challah which is subject to the Mitzvas Hatorah. Since the Mitzvas Hatorah themselves include an ability to be Mattir Neder, so my Beracha is not a Beracha Levatalah. Because what did I do, I said this is Challah subject to all the rules of Dinei Challah. That is what happened. Even when I nullified the Hafrashas Challah it is not a Beracha Levatala because it turns out that what I did with the Beracha is Mikuyam. When I made the Beracha I said I am making this Challah subject to Hilchos Yore Dai’a. And it is subject to Hilchos Yore Dai’a which allows Hataras Nedarim. So it turns out says the Chasam Sofer, that it is not a Beracha Levatala.

I should add for those who learn Maseches Nedarim that there is a Rav Shimon Shkop who says that Hataras Nedarim works L’mafrei’a only Mikan Ul’haba L’mafrei’a. He has a Lomdishe twist that says that Hafrashas Challah is only retroactive for things that are important for now and the future. However, it is not retroactive for things that are retroactive, that took place in the past. He has this type of hair splitting Chiluk in Hataras Nedarim L’mafrei’a. According to Rav Shimon the Chasam Sofer’s question would be answered and it is not a Beracha Levatala. At the time it truly was Challah. It is only later that it becomes Os Challah L’mafrei’a.

Kasha #2 on the issue of being Mattir Neder – The Taz also in Siman 323 has a long piece in which he asks a great Kasha. He says if it is true that you can be Mattir Neder on things to which you give Kedusha which presumably does not only include Challah and Terumah but Korbanos as well. Or making oneself a Nazir, if you can be Mattir Neder based on events that take place later, you would never have a Nazir who would become Tamei and have to bring a Korban. If he becomes Tamei let him be Mattir Neder based on the fact that if he would have known that he would become Tamei he would have never made a Neder. Or if you have a Nazir who is getting Malkus for drinking wine, he should never get Malkus, let him be Mattir Neder and say had I known that I would drink wine I never would have made myself a Nazir in the first place. Or how can you give an Onesh of Shechutai Chutz (which is a Korban that is Shechted outside the Bais Hamikdash). If it is Shechted outside the Bais Hamikdash that would be a legitimate reason to be Mattir Neder because had I known that it would be Shechted outside the Bais Hamikdash I would have never made it a Korban. So asks the Taz how can that be?

The Taz says it must be that you can’t be Mattir Nedder based on future events which is called B’nolad, and if so the same thing should apply to Hafrashas Challah, how can you be Mattir Neder based on the facts that take place later? This is a Gevaldige Kasha.

The Orach Hashulchan actually says Ein Hachi Nami, you can fix all those cases that we brought down if you want (Nazir, Shechutai Chutz...) and there is only an Onesh if you don’t. This is a difficult Teretz.

Rav Yaakov Emden in the Teshuvas Yaivetz Cheilek 2 Teshuva 98 offers a great Teretz to the Taz’s Kasha. He says the idea of Poschim B’nolad, allowing someone to be Mattir Neder based on a future event is only on a future event which is Shichiach (happens often). If it happens often then you can say had you contemplated it at the time would I have made the Neder. On a Davar Delo Shichiach a person can’t be Mattir Neder. Certainly it is not Shichiach for a Nazir to drink wine in a circumstance where he would get Malkus and he is warned not to drink the wine, and therefore it is Lo Shichiach and you can’t be Mattir Neder based on that.  To Shecht a Korban Bachutz is not Shichiach.

As far as women mixing Challah back into the dough, you may argue that it is not Shichiach, however, Rabbanim will tell you that it happens quite often.  Therefore that is Shichiach enough to be Mattir Neder. Mashe’ain’kein, the other difficulties of Shechitas Bachutz and the rest which are not Shichiach, and there it doesn’t help. 

I saw an extraordinary Chiddush of Rav Chaim Kanievsky in the Derech Emunah Cheilek Bais which is Hilchos Teruma Perek 4:186. There he brings an extraordinary Chiddush B’sheim the Chazon Ish as Halacha L’mayseh. That is in such a situation where a woman or any Shaliach separates Challah, she is actually separating Challah from the dough which is legally the dough of her husband. Her husband in effect makes her a Shaliach to separate the dough. Zogt the Chazon Ish and this is based on earlier sources that the person who has to be Mattir Neder is not the woman it is the man because it was his Shaliach that separated the Challah. Since this is a Chiddush, an issue of question, the Chazon Ish says that they should both be Mattir Neder or the woman should make her husband a Shaliach. The only person who can be a Shaliach for Hatoras Nedarim is a husband for a wife. So then the husband can be Mattir for both of them. This is an extraordinary Chiddush but this is the Psak that is brought there in the footnotes from the Chazon Ish.

Many of you have already come to me and I have been Mattir Neder for the wife alone. I would point out that the Piskei Teshuva in Yore Dai’a 331:6 B’sheim the Chasam Sofer says that it is enough for the woman alone to be Mattir Neder. Nevertheless, when we have the Psak of the Chazon Ish and the Sefer Milo’o Omer which is quoted there, that the husband should be Mattir Neder as well, in the future Bli Neder that will be my practice.

2 Kinds Of Oness - Purim 5772

Rav Elchonon in Maseches Kesuvos has a Dvar Halacha. Esther says in 4:16 וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי, אָבָדְתִּי Meaning, she was willing to go to Achashveiroish, however, just like she was Ovaditi from her parents’ house so too she was Ovaditi from Mordechai in that she became Assur to him when she went to live with Achashveiroish willingly. (Tosafos asks why didn’t Mordechai give a Get and answers that Mordechai thought then the story would be out there.)

There are 2 difficulties with this. Someone who is married and lives with someone other than her husband B’oines is not Assur to her husband who is a Yisrael. Let’s say she was Assur to her husband, this should have happened anyway years before as this part of the story took place in the 12th year of Achashveiroish’s reign. Esther had already been married to Achashveiroish for an extended period. So why does Esther say here  וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי, אָבָדְתִּי ?

Rav Elchonon in Koivetz Shiurim Ois 8 & 9 has an important insight into when people are compelled to do something. Basically, he is coming to answer a Rambam. The Rambam says if someone is forced to bow down to an Avoida Zorah, the Halacha is he should get killed and not bow down. This person bows down and doesn’t ask to be killed. The Rambam says that he violated the Halachos of Kiddush Hashem. Howevr, as far as Dinei Avoida Zorah he isn’t Chayuv Misa because he was an Oines and Oines Rachmana Patrei.

Rav Elchonon asks that this Rambam contradicts a Rambam in the 5th Perek of Hilchos Yesoidei Hatorah. The Rambam there says that if a person is ill and the only way to be healed is to eat from the fruit of an Asheira tree, which is Abaz’rai’hu of Avoida Zorah, that you must be killed and not to eat the fruit. The Rambam says if that person were to eat the fruit from that tree then he gets Malkus. This contradicts the person who bowed down to Avoida Zorah and didn’t receive a punishment. The Ohr Sameach asks this question as well on the Rambam and gives the same Teretz.

Rav Elchonon is Mechaleik between 2 types of Oines. There is one type of Oines that a person is forced physically, meaning someone points a gun at him and forces him to do something. There the act is not really his act. If someone would take a person and physically bend his body in front of an Avoida Zorah, we wouldn’t say that the person is bowing. The other person is using this person’s body to bow. So too if someone points a gun at someone and asks him to bow to an Avoida Zorah, the Rambam considers it the man with the gun who is doing the Mai’se. So it is an Oines and he is Patur.

This is not so with eating from the Asheira tree. This is not the same type of Oines. In the case of the Avoida Zorah, this person would be delighted if the Avoida Zorah would just disappear. Not so the person who is ill and needs the food of the tree for his Hatzolah. If someone would take that fruit away, the person would be distraught. So someone who does a Hatzolah because of Pikuach Nefashois does not have the same rules of Oines and he is punished.

This is the Pshat with Esther. All along when Esther was married to Achashveiroish when she was physically forced to live with Achashveiroish, and we know that since Isha Karka Oilam Hi that she is not required to let herself be killed instead of Znus, and therefore since it was an Oines, she didn’t become Assur to her husband.

Not so when she went to Achashveiroish as a means of Hatzolah for Klal Yisrael.This would be comparable to eating from the Asheira tree. She did it and she is still Assur to her husband Mordechai.

This Pshat actually helps us appreciate the Gadlus of the Chofetz Chaim. This Rav Elchonon and Ohr Sameach, the Mishna Berura says in half a line. In the Halacha of Brocha Rishonah of Birchas Hapeirus in Siman (204) Raish Daled, the Taz asks a Stira between two Se’ifim. In 240:8 the Rama says if someone forces you to eat something, you don’t make a Brocha. In 240:9 it says, if someone eats Treif because of a Sakana, you do make a Brocha. The Taz asks that it is a Stira because both are an Oines and yet by someone forcing you to eat you don’t make a Brocha and when you are an Oines to eat Treif for a Refua you do make a Brocha?

The Mishna Berura says when you are forced to eat something you are an Oines in the Mai’se itself, which is like Esther all the years living with Achashveiroish. On the other hand when someone is ill and takes something to eat that is Hatzalah through an Issur and you do make a Brocha because it is not called an Oines Gamur.

The Minchas Elazar brings a Zohar to explain why וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי, אָבָדְתִּי is only applicable here and not previously. Before this incident, any time Achashveiroish wanted to be Mezane, Esther would send a Shaid in her place. This Shaid was a spirit that would take on the physical form of Esther and she was never Mezane. Now for the first time she was going herself which is why she said וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי, אָבָדְתִּי. Now of course this is difficult Al Pi Pshat because as we know she had a child. We know that she couldn’t have become pregnant that night because that was in middle of Achashveiroish’s 12th year of his reign and Achashveiroish’s reign was for 14 years. This would mean that Daryaveish would have been 1 year and 3 months old at the time that he took over the kingdom and gave permission to the Yidden to rebuild the BaisHamikdash which is highly unlikely. We know that he was the one that gave the permission because the Gemara says that Koiresh was a Melech Kosher. Daryaveish was Koiresh. So Al Pi Pshat it doesn’t fit well.

The Minchas Elazar writes if she was able to send a Shaid every other time than why couldn’t she send a Shaid this time as well to be with Achashveiroish?  He Teitches that Mordechai warned her as it says in 4:14 יד  כִּי אִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ תַּחֲרִישִׁי, בָּעֵת הַזֹּאת--רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וְאַתְּ וּבֵית-אָבִיךְ תֹּאבֵדוּ; וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ--אִם-לְעֵת כָּזֹאת, הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת Meaning, if you are going to do magic this time and send a Shaid again, the Yidden will be saved through Shaidim (the Sitra Achra) and nothing will remain of you. Hatzolah that comes about through using the Sitra Achra has no Kiyum, it doesn’t remain, and this time you have to go yourself.

Gomel After A Robbery - Mishpatim 5769

The Mishnah B’rurah has a Shaila about Bentching Goimel. If someone gets robbed does he have to Bentch Goimel. The Mishnah B’rurah Paskens that you do Bentch Goimel. Why? He brings from the Parsha, in 22:1 (אִם-בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב, וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת--אֵין לוֹ, דָּמִים), if someone came to steal money and you kill him, you are not Chaiyov. Ai, he just came for money, so why aren’t you Chayov for killing him?

Rashi brings from the Gemara, (אין לו דמים: אין זו רציחה, הרי הוא כמת מעיקרו. כאן למדתך תורה אם בא להרגך, השכם להרגו, וזה להרגך בא שהרי יודע הוא, שאין אדם מעמיד עצמו וראה שנוטלין ממונו בפניו ושותק, לפיכך על מנת כן בא, שאם יעמוד בעל הממון כנגדו יהרגנו) that everyone knows that people don’t stand by while their money gets taken. He comes with the thought that if the person he is robbing will try to defend himself, he will kill him. So if someone gets robbed, he should have to Bentch Goimel. It’s Shver. Rashi doesn’t say he is coming to kill you. Rashi says that if the person getting robbed will fight back, the robber will kill him. What if there would be a case where someone was getting robbed, and he just handed over the money with no qualms, such a person was never in Sakanah according to this, because Rashi is saying only if the Bal Hamamon would stand to defend himself and his money than he would get killed. So it seems that Rashi has the exact opposite Psak than the Mishnah B’brurah?

People defend Rashi’s position, that by nature, people would defend themselves and this person who held himself back from defending himself Bentches Goimel on the fact that he held himself back from defending himself. This is not true. A person who holds himself back from performing a life threatening task doesn’t Bentch Goimel. You only Bentch Goimel when the Sakanah is there, not when you could have done something foolish. It seems to be a Shtaker Kasha on the Mishnah B’rurah. Halachah L’maiseh we would do as the Mishnah B’rurah Paskens.