Mezuzah's Protection

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cites a braisa: If one rents a house to his fellow, the tenant must provide a mezuzah. And when he leaves, he must not take it with him, unless he rented it from a gentile, in which case, he must remove it when he leaves. And it once happened that a man took the mezuzah away with him, and he buried his wife and two children.

The Gemora asks: Do we relate a story in contradiction of what we had just learned?

Rav Sheishes answers: It refers to the first clause (where he rented from a Jew).

Tosfos writes that there are mazikin - supernatural forces that enter a house bereft of a mezuzah.

The Ritva explains that this punishment was measure for measure. Since he was not concerned about the danger that could befall the future residents (for now, they will not be protected by the mezuzah), he himself suffers, and he is not afforded any protection.

The Kesef Mishnah writes that a mezuzah, which is written correctly, will protect the residents of the house. The protection is not afforded because of the names of Heavenly angels that are written there. And, he concludes, it will only protect a person if it was affixed to the doorpost for the sake of the mitzvah; not if it was placed there solely for protection.

The Maharitz Chayus compares the protection afforded by the mezuzah to the protection that comes from the studying of Torah or the performance of any mitzvah. It would emerge that that there is no greater protection afforded by the mezuzah more than any other mitzvah in the Torah.

Reb Avi Lebovitz points out that seemingly, there will be no protection afforded to a person who is exempt from the mitzvah of mezuzah, and does so anyway. It is not the mezuzah that provides the protection; it is the mitzvah of the mezuzah.

However, the Maharsham cites an opinion of the Shevus Yaakov, who holds that even if one is exempt from placing a mezuzah on a certain doorpost, he may do so for protection purposes, and he would not be called a hedyot.

Read more!

Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.

The Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 1:3) writes: There cannot be an argument regarding a halachah learned from a Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai. The obvious question is from our Gemora (Bava Kamma 17 - 18) where we have the disagreement between the Chachamim and Sumchos regarding the payment for the case of “pebbles.” The Chachamim maintain that the Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai teaches us that half damages are collected, whereas Sumchos disagrees.

The Maharitz Chayus quotes this question from the Chavos Yair (192), and suggests based on the Rambam in his explanation to a Mishna at the end of Eduyos that we have a tradition that Eliyahu Hanavi will do good for Klal Yisroel at the end of time, but there is a disagreement on the specifics. Here too, all agree that pebbles is a Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai that it is included in damages that one is responsible for, but they argue as to the extent of the liability.

The Gemora cites Rav Ashi inquiry: According to Sumchos, do we treat the damage caused by the force of the animal’s force the same way as the force of the animal itself? There are several approaches to understand this.

The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that since Sumchos does not agree that pebbles are learned from a Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai, the reason he holds that one is liable in full is purely based upon logic. Accordingly, there can be a distinction between damage caused by the animal’s force and damage caused by the force of the animal’s force.

The Rosh understands the inquiry as follows: Sumchos was uncertain if there was a Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai by pebbles at all. If there was one, perhaps it was coming to teach us that one is not liable to pay full damages by a case where the damage was caused by the force of the animal’s force; rather, he is only obligated to pay half.

According to both these approaches, it is evident that they did not learn like the Maharatz Chiyus.

Reb Avi Lebovitz quotes a Chasam Sofer (Beitzah 5a - pg. 20), who offers another approach. We certainly find many cases where there is a dispute regarding a Halachah l’Moshe mi’Sinai. The Rambam doesn’t mean to say that an argument cannot develop on a tradition; rather, he means to say that when there was a disagreement about a tradition and the Sages of the generation agree to one approach and reject the other – they essentially are deciding that the tradition of the one they accept is correct and the other is not. At that point, no later generation can restore the argument and rely on the tradition of the individual.

Read more!

Spending Money for a Mitzvah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Tosfos (Bava Kamma 9b) writes that it is evident from our Gemora that a person is not obligated to give up all of his possessions in order to fulfill a mitzvah, and even for a mitzvah that will pass in time, such as an esrog. It is further evident from the conclusion of the Gemora that one is not even obligated to give up a third of his possessions in order to fulfill a mitzvah. And furthermore, it is said regarding charity: One who gives liberally to charity should not give more than a fifth of his money, for then, he will be forced to beg for support himself.

All Mitzvos

The Rosh writes that this halacha applies by all mitzvos; one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on any specific mitzva, such as esrog or lulav. The Rambam and Rema seem to rule accordingly.

Why not Spend?

The Rishonim ask: Why would someone be exempt from performing a mitzvah just because it costs more than a fifth of his wealth? The Ra’avad answers that this is similar to halacha that one should make his Shabbos like an ordinary weekday, and not be forced to be supported from charity. This is because poverty is regarded as death, and one is not obligated to give up his life for an ordinary mitzvah.

The Biur Halachah writes (in his explanation of an opinion from the Beis Yosef) that not all mitzvos are compared to charity, for charity is a mitzvah that will not pass in time, and even if the poor people are before him, they can be supported by another person. That is why one would not be obligated to spend more than a tenth of his possessions. However, with respect to a mitzvah that will pass in time, it is possible that there would be an obligation to spend more than a tenth.

Reb Yaakov Emden asks: Why isn’t there an obligation to spend more for a positive commandment? Did we not learn regarding one who does not want to fulfill a positive commandment – we beat him until his soul departs him? Do we treat his money stricter than his life?

The Maharitz Chayus answers that we only beat him until his soul departs him when he is rebelling against the fulfillment of mitzvos; otherwise, we do not beat him, and he would not be required to spend all his money for it.

Lo Sa’aseh is Different

The Ra’avad adds that this halacha applies only to a positive commandment; however, one would be required to spend his entire wealth in order not to transgress a negative precept.

Must he Spend a Fifth?

The Gemora (Kesuvos 50a) states that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth to fulfill a mitzvah; is one halachically required to spend up to that amount, or is it only regarded as a mitzvah?

The Beis Yosef (Y”D; 249) writes that it is considered a mitzvah in the preferable manner if one spends up to a fifth of his wealth in order to perform a mitzvah. The Beis Yosef adds that although one can imply from the Gemora that it is not even a mitzvah to spend that amount because the Gemora states: One who spends liberally should not give more than a fifth of his wealth; however, even less than that would be regarded as spending liberally, and there would be no mitzvah whatsoever to spend that amount. Nevertheless, there is a Yerushalmi in Pe’ah that seems to indicate that there is a mitzvah to spend up to one-fifth of his wealth for a mitzvah.

In the sefer Ahavas Chesed, the Chafetz Chaim cites a Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos, who writes that there is a halachic obligation to spend up to one-fifth of one’s wealth for charity. He asks form our Gemora, which would seem to indicate that there is no such obligation. He answers that our Gemora is discussing a case where the poor people are not present and someone is searching to find them in order to give them charity. In such a situation, there is not even a mitzvah to give up to one-fifth. However, the Yerushalmi and the Rambam are speaking about a case where the poor person is in front of you; then, there would be a halachic obligation to give up to one-fifth.

Spending More than a Fifth

What if one wants to spend more than a fifth? Is he allowed to? It is evident from the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos that it is regarded as virtuous (midas chassidus) for one to spend more than a fifth. However, it can be inferred from the Rambam in halachos that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on a mitzvah.

The Chafetz Chaim reconciles the two rulings of the Rambam in the same manner as before. If the poor person is present, it would be regarded as midas chassidus to spend more than a fifth, and that is what the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos is discussing. However, when the poor people are not present and one is chasing after them, he should not spend more than a fifth.

The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth if it is to support the studying of Torah. The Ahavas Chesed explains the reasoning for this. One who supports another fellow to learn Torah is creating a partnership with him; the supporter receives a reward together with the one who is learning the Torah. One is permitted to purchase this reward for himself even if it will cost him more than a fifth.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe (Y”D, 4:37) rules that this is correct only if the supporter specifically negotiates with the one studying Torah to create a partnership of Yissochar and Zevulun. However, if the provider is just donating money to support Torah, he is not permitted to give more than a fifth.

The Ibn Ezra in Mishlei (4:7) writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth in order to study Torah himself. The Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos (Yoma 12a) also rules like that. However, the Netziv in the Shiltos states that this is a matter of dispute between two Amoraim. The Gemora in Eruvin cites the verse that Torah is not in the Heavens. Rav Avdimi says: If it would be in the heavens, one would be obligated to go there and learn. It is evident that one would be forced to spend more than a fifth of his wealth to study Torah, for otherwise, he could claim that it costs too much to travel to the Heaven. However, Rava disagrees regarding the interpretation of that verse, and according to him, one would not be allowed to spend more than a fifth in order to study Torah.

The Rema (Y”D, 249:1) seems to hold that one can give away more than one-fifth of his wealth to charity right before he dies. It is brought in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah that even then, he should not.

It is written in Ahavas Chesed that one who is a free-spender in regards to himself and his family, i.e., he splurges on expensive clothing, builds for himself a fancy mansion and generally leads a luxurious lifestyle; it is permitted for him to give to charity more than a fifth of his wealth.

Some say that if one finds himself in dire straits, he is permitted to spend more than a fifth with the intention that it should be on account of this deed that he will merit a salvation. It is brought in the name of the Bnei Yissoschar that one who requires atonement on a specific sin is also permitted to give away more than a fifth.

Read more!

The Consumption of Non-Kosher Food Causing “Timtum”

The Gemora states (Daf Yomi: Sotah 12b): And his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call for you a wet-nurse from the Hebrew women?” The Gemora asks: Why was it necessary to summon a Hebrew woman? The Gemora answers: This teaches us that they handed Moshe to all the Egyptian women, but he would not nurse from them. He said: “Shall a mouth that is destined to speak with the Shechinah nurse from something which is not kosher?”

The question is asked: Why does the Gemora state this reason with respect to Moshe, when the halacha clearly rules that all Jews must refrain from having an idolater nurse their child, if a Jewish nurse is available (Rama Y”D 81:7)?
Maharatz Chayos suggests that this halacha only applied after the Giving of the Torah, for then many of the foods consumed by non-Jewish women are forbidden to Jews. Since this reason was not applicable to Moshe in Egypt, it was necessary to provide a different explanation for his refusal to be nursed by an Egyptian woman.

Shulchan Aruch rules that a Jewish baby is permitted to have a non-Jewish wet nurse; however it is not preferable because the non-kosher food will harm the baby spiritually. The Rama adds that a Jewish woman who must eat non-kosher food for health reasons should not nurse her baby because the non-kosher food will be detrimental for the child.

The Gra cites our Gemora that Moshe refused to nurse from an Egyptian woman because he was destined for prophecy, so it would be improper for him to consume non-kosher food. It would seem that the non-kosher food would have affected his soul, and disqualify him to be the Prophet that he became.

Reb Micha Berger gleans from here that non-kosher food is intrinsically harmful for a person’s soul even if it is permissible to eat.

He cites a Ran in his Drashos (11) that states this explicitly. In his discussion as to why halacha is decided by the Chachamim and not by the Prophets, he asks the following question: If a sage errs and permits a forbidden food, it is like a doctor who makes a mistake and gives a patient poison instead of medicine. In both cases, the person is harmed. Accordingly, wouldn’t it be preferable for the Prophets to decide halachic matters, and then, there would be no mistakes?

He answers that prophecy is not always available. He then adds that even though eating non-kosher food is harmful, the mitzvah of listening to our sages may offset the harmful effects. It is however evident from the Ran that the consumption of non-kosher food is objectively poison, and detrimental to one’s soul even if it is done permissibly.

The Abarbanel (Devarim 17:4) disagrees with the Ran. He maintains that it is impossible for harm to befall a person if he is following the Chachamim. If the food is permitted, it cannot be harmful. Reb Micha explains that it would seem from the Abarbanel that he maintains that the consumption of non-kosher food is not intrinsically harmful; rather, it is harmful only because it is prohibited. If for some reason, there is no prohibition, then it is not harmful.

Reb Moshe (O”C 2:88) quotes the Chasam Sofer where he was discussing a handicapped girl in the following situation: If she would remain at home, she would not develop properly and remain ignorant her entire life. However, if the parents would send her to a special school, they claimed that she would then reach the potential of a teenager. However, the school was in a non-Jewish area, and there was no possibility of providing kosher food. The Chasam Sofer ruled that it is permitted to send her there, but he recommended against sending her, for the following reason: If they send her to that school, she will become intelligent enough to be obligated in mitzvos. The non-kosher food that she will consume will affect her heart, and she will probably violate Torah and mitzvos. It is therefore preferable for her to remain in her present situation. (He concludes: Her present situation is more preferable than being “b’timtum” before the Holy One, Blessed is He for one moment.)

Read more!

Talking Cow

The Mishna had stated (Daf Yomi: Nazir 10a): If one said, “This cow said, ‘I am hereby a nazir if I stand up,’” or he said, “This door said, ‘I am hereby a nazir if I open’” (the Gemara will explain these cases), Beis Shamai says: He is a nazir. Beis Hillel says: He is not a nazir.

The Gemora asks: Does a cow talk?

The Gemora suggests different interpretations of the Mishna. It is noteworthy that Tosfos cites Rabbeinu Peretz saying that the Mishna is discussing a case where the cow actually did talk!

There are numerous times in Chazal that we find a statement that would seem to indicate that a tree, animal or even an inanimate object was speaking. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (108b) records a conversation that Noach had with the raven. The Gemora Eruvin (18b) relates what the dove told to Noach. The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin (2:6) discusses the complaint of the letter yud before the Ribbono shel Olam (that he was removed from Saray’s name).

The Maharatz Chiyus in his introduction to the Ein Yaakov states that Chazal do not mean to say that the animal’s or letters were actually talking; rather, they are relating what they could have claimed if they would have been given the power of speech.

However, Reb Boruch Epstien in his notes on the Pardes Yosef (58) cites our Tosfos, which seems to say otherwise.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that it would appear from our Gemora that if the cow would have been able to talk, the Mishna would be understandable. He asks: What would it accomplish if the cow had the ability to speak in the same manner as Bilam’s donkey? Can a person become a nazir because of the animal’s declaration? Even if another human would declare that his fellow should be a nazir, he wouldn’t be a nazir!

Read more!