Keeping The Idol - Vayeitzei 5771

31:19 (וַתִּגְנֹב רָחֵל, אֶת-הַתְּרָפִים אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיהָ) We know that Rochel stole the Avoda Zora of her father Lavan. However, instead of doing what we would do and throwing them in the ocean, she kept it with her. The Divrei Yoel (Satmar Rebbe) asks, why did she keep it with her? What did she want with the Avoda Zora, it is Assur B’hana?

He answers that Rochel knew how to be Metaheir the Avoda Zora. The Gemara in Maseches Avoda Zora describes a method in which an Avoda Zora can be made Muttar B’hana through Bittul, and she knew how to do it. This was her plan. This is why she held the Avoda Zora with her all along.

The question is, would we do that? Would we want to have benefit from an Avoda Zora? Isn’t it a little strange? The B’nei Yissaschar in Chodesh Av says regarding something Treif that falls into a pot of Kosher food in a matter which is Bateil B’shishim, it is Muttar. Let’s say a little milk fell into a Fleishig soup, if the milk was 1/60^th of the total soup, the soup is Muttar. Is there an Inyan not to eat this soup as there is something non Kosher in the soup?

This is a Shaila in the Pischei Teshuva and he brings that it is good to be Machmir not to eat it. The Nesivos says on the contrary, the Torah says it is Muttar and you could eat it.

The B’nei Yissaschar goes a step further and says it is a Mayla for a person to eat something that was Treif and is Bateil. You are not allowed to do it deliberately because Ein Mevatlin Issur L’chat’chila. However, if it happened in a Muttar way that Issur became Kosher, that Kabbalistically is called Klipos She’toharu, things that were Tamei and now became Tahor. Under such circumstances, the item actually becomes better than if it never became Tamei. Therefore, a person should eat that type of food.

This would explain why Rochel would Dafka want an Avoda Zora, to be Metaheir the Avoda Zora and to thereby make the Avoda Zora into something usable. Klipos She’toharu is like B’makom She’haBaal Teshuva Omed Ein Kol Ha’adom Omed. Something that was on the other side and became Tahor is on a higher level.

This would explain what had occurred. I am assuming that Rochel understood that it was not a danger to hold the Avoda Zora. Even if Lavan had found it he would not have killed his children over it. I am not coming to answer the question of any type of danger, I am only coming to answer the question of why she would want an Avoda Zora.

The Pink Umbrella - Ki Seitzei 5769

22:5  ה  לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה:  כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְרוָר אֱלֹקֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה  It says “Loi Yilbash Gever Simlas Isha” A man is not allowed to wear the Beged of a woman. It becomes a Nichshal on Purim when little children are dressed as the other gender, which is Sheloi K’din. Even for Ketanim it is a Shaila of an Issur D’oiraisa. Let’s say I have to go out and it is raining, can I take an umbrella that everyone would say was made for a woman? Is this included in Loi Yilbash? The Shittas Habach has an extraordinary Kullah and he holds that unless your Kavana is to pretend you are a woman you may wear women’s clothing. His Raya is, one of the things that are Assur is to look into a mirror. This is from the time of the Rishoinim when men didn’t look into mirrors. The Shulchan Aruch says it is Assur for a man to look into a mirror because of Loi Yilbash. Rav Akiva Eiger brings that nowadays is different, in that men also look into a mirror. Toisafos in Maseches Avoidah Zarah 29a D’H Hamistapeir Mei’oived Koichavim Roi’eh B’mar’eh says that if someone is getting a haircut by a Goy, he is allowed to have a mirror because we are Choi’shed Goyim for lifting weapons against Yidden when getting haircuts. This is like the Bach because he is not looking into the mirror to look like a woman. The Chochmas Adam in Binas Adam Ois 74 says the Bach is incorrect. One of the Issurim is for a woman to wear K’lei Zayin, arms. We find by Ya’el who killed Sisra, in Shoiftim 5:26, when she killed him with a peg of a tent, that Chazal say that was because she didn’t want to use Kley Zayin because of Kli Gever. She didn’t do it because she thought someone would think that she was trying to be a man? Clearly it is Assur. What about the Raya of looking in a mirror? The Chochmas Adam says there are 2 types of Loi Yilbash Gever Simlas Isha. One is when you wear a Malbush Gamur. A Malbush that you are wearing is always Assur, no matter what your Kavana is. Something that is not a Malbush, like for example looking into a mirror, since it has to do with how a person looks, Chazal understood to Assur that as well. So when it comes to wearing the arms of a rifle or a sword, that is something that is worn, and something that is worn, the Lashon of the Gemara is, Sheloi Teitzei Isha Bichlei Zayin Lamilchamah. If it is being carried and not worn than if there is no Kavana to dress like the other gender it is Muttar. The example given is a cane, where even if it is a woman’s cane a man can use it because it is not worn. This is a Heter to use a woman’s umbrella, because it is not worn and the Kavana is not to look like a woman. A woman would be able to carry a revolver as well. By clothing we don’t Pasken like the Bach and therefore, we can’t wear clothing of the opposite gender. However, we can rely on the Bach when it comes to carrying things that were meant for the other gender.     

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.

"Put On A Sweater, It's Freezing Outside!" - Yisro 5770

20:11 יא  כַּבֵּד אֶת-אָבִיךָ, וְאֶת-אִמֶּךָ--לְמַעַן, יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר יְרוָר אֱלֹקֶּיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ It is not so clear what the Gidarim are for this Mitzvah. The Gemara in Maseches Kiddushin 31b (3 lines from the bottom) says, ת"ר איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד מורא לא עומד במקומו ולא יושב במקומו ולא סותר את דבריו ולא מכריעו כיבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא Lets say your mother asks you to wear a coat when you go out. Are you Oiver on Kibbud or Yirah or are you not Oiver on anything if you choose not to wear a coat? The Sefer Hamakne writes clearly that a person is Oiver anytime he disobeys a parent. There is a Dibrois Moshe that disagrees strongly and says that a person is only Oiver if he disobeys one of the things that are listed in the Gemara and anything else he is not Oiver on.

Rav Pam had Rayas to the Hamakne including the Gur Aryeh (Maharal) on this week’s Parsha who says you are Oiver on Yirah if you disobey. There is the Sefer Yir’ahem that sides with Rav Moshe that you are not Oiver. It is hard to Pasken such a Shaila. Of course it is better to be Machmir.

There is a Machloikes Shach and Taz at the beginning of Siman 240 if the Chiyuv not to contradict a Father, is that only in front of him or even not in front of him. A P’shara might be if a father asks a child to put on a coat. The child can put on the coat in front of him and when he is not on front of the father he has 2 Tzirufim to be Maikail and take off the coat. 1) The Shach who holds that not in front of him it is not an Issur to contradict a father and 2) Rav Moshe’s Shittah that it is Bichlal not included in the Aveira.

Most probably it is not the best thing to teach children that they have to only listen to parents while they are in front of them, however, technically and Halachically this seems to be a Gevaldiga P’shara and an important Halacha.

Who stood Up? - Yisro 5770

18:7  ז  וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ, וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ, לְשָׁלוֹם; וַיָּבֹאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה  Rashi says וישתחו וישק לו: איני יודע מי השתחוה למי, כשהוא אומר איש לרעהו, מי הקרוי איש, זה משה, שנאמר (במדבר יב ג) והאיש משה This Posuk that is brought down by Rashi that uses the word Ish by Moshe is found in Bamidbar 12:3 where it says, ג  וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד--מִכֹּל, הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה  So it must be that Moshe is the one that bowed.

Earlier in Parshas Shemos we find in 2:21 that כא  וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה, לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ; וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ, לְמֹשֶׁה  So Yisro is also called Ish so how is it a Raya? If it says Stam Ish shouldn’t Rashi bring the Raya from Parshas Shemos that is found earlier than in Parshas Behalois’cha? So how do we know that the Ish who bowed down was Moshe Rabbeinu?

The Chasam Soifer that is brought down in Toras Moshe says it is not a G’zeiras Shava Ish Ish. Rashi said that since the word Ish is used we don’t know who bowed down to whom. It is a Lamdisha Rashi. The Gemara in Maseches Kiddushin 33b (16 lines from the top) has a Kler. איבעיא להו בנו והוא רבו מהו לעמוד מפני אביו  Meaning, if the son is the Rebbi who stands up for who? The Gemara is not Poishet this Kasha and it stays a Safeik.

It is told over about the Maram Mei’Rutenberg that after he became a Gadol B’yisrael he went to visit his father and there was a Shaila who should stand up for who. This is a Shaila M’d’oiraissa.

So here Yisro is the father in law and Moshe Rabbeinu is the Manhig Yisrael so Moshe had a Chiyuv to stand up for his father in law and Yisro had a Chiyuv to stand up for the Gadol Hador. So Rashi is saying who stood up for whom? I can’t tell you because I can’t figure it out because the Gemara is not Poishet the Shaila of who gets up for who. So since the Posuk in Parshas Behaloischa says וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד so it must be that Moshe stood up for Yisro.  So it is not a Gezairas Shavah Ish Ish that you would be able to ask that Yisro is called Ish earlier in Parshas Shemos than Moshe is called Ish in Parshas Behaloischa. 

We actually find the word Ish regarding Moshe earlier than in Parshas Behaloischa, and that is in Parshas Ki Sisa 32:1 where it says א  וַיַּרְא הָעָם, כִּי-בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן-הָהָר; וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה-לָנוּ אֱלֹ ק ים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ--כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ So why did Rashi go to a later Posuk to bring that Moshe is called Ish? It must be that Rashi wanted the context of this Posuk that calls Moshe an Ish and Anav in the same Posuk.

Besides for this being a beautiful Vort it is also a Mussar for us. Our generation has become lax in standing up for a Father and Father in Law and we should become more Zahir in this Inyan.

Sun Pictures - Yisro 5772

There is one Issur D’oraissa that is Nogea today that is probably the least known and the most misunderstood of the Mitzvos D’oraissa and as a matter of fact it appears in the Aseres Hadibros which is something you would think everybody would know.

In the Aseres Hadibros we find the Issur of 20:3 (לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל, וְכָל-תְּמוּנָה, אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל, וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת--וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם, מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ). There is an Issur D’oraissa to make an image of heavenly bodies that are in the heaven or earth. There, it is part of the Issur of Avodah Zora. However, right after the Aseres Hadibros, the Torah explains in 20:19 (לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן, אִתִּי: אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם). The Gemara in Maseches Rosh Hashono (the Gemara has a long Arichus on 24b regarding this) explains that this expands the Issur in the Aseres Hadibros. (לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן, אִתִּי), the Gemara says that the Lav of the Aseres Hadibros applies to making an image to be used as an Avodah Zora. (לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן, אִתִּי) comes to include even a heavenly image not used for Avoda Zora. As explained in Shulchan Aruch in Yore Dai’a 144, there is an Issur of drawing in a 2 dimensional image (not a statue) of the heavenly bodies of the sun, moon, and the stars.

This is an Issur D’oraissa that is Muttar as the Gemara says to do it for learning purposes but outside of learning purposes to make it as something which is painting a picture for beauty, there is an Issur D’oraissa. Unfortunately this is not well known and I don’t know on what newspapers like the Hamodia rely when their weather report has the pictures of the sun. Perhaps they rely on the fact that it is printed by non-Jews who are not prohibited from making these images but still the person in the office who sets the page would seem to have a prohibition. As I said, it is not a well-known Din but it is a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch and nobody argues. That drawing an image of the sun or the moon is an Issur D’oraissa.