A Childless Couple Divorcing and Remarrying

A couple who did not merit having children came to Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein with the following inquiry: Should they get divorced and then remarried, for they had heard that this is a segulah for having children? The woman, however, was refusing because getting divorced was degrading to her. What should they do?

He cited proof from our Gemora that a divorce, even just for a few moments is degrading and therefore, the wife has grounds to refuse the divorce.

The Gemora (Kesuvos 81b) states: Rava sent the following question to Abaye in the hands of Rav Shemayah bar Zeira: Is it indeed true that the kesuvah of a yevamah was meant to be collected while the yavam is alive? But didn’t we learn in the following braisa: Rabbi Abba said: I asked Sumchus: If a yavam (after performing yibum) wishes to sell some of his brother’s properties (something that he is not allowed to do), what should he do?

Sumchus responded: If he is a Kohen (and he cannot marry his divorcee), he should prepare for her a feast (with some wine) and persuade her to allow him to sell the property (which exceeds the amount of her kesuvah). If he is a Yisroel, he should divorce her and then, remarry her (he can either sell the properties before the second marriage or afterwards).

Rava concludes his question: If the kesuvah of a yevamah was meant to be collected while the yavam is alive, let the yavam designate land for her which equals the amount of the kesuvah, and then, he should be permitted to sell the remaining property? This, explains Rashi is a much more preferable option, for getting divorced is degrading!

The Steipler Gaon, when asked the same question, said that a childless couple may try to divorce and remarry (and the husband need not be concerned that after the divorce, the wife will refuse to remarry); however, he personally never heard that this is a valid segulah and he has no opinion regarding its veracity.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 32 - VOWELS IN THE MEGILLAH

The Gemora provides the reason for Rabbi Meir: One recites the blessing when the Torah is closed in order that people will not think that the blessings are written in the Torah.

Shulchan Aruch (691:9) rules that a Megillah which has been vowelized (the nekudos have been written in) or the blessings have been written on the front page, is not disqualified and it may be used.

The Mishna Berura writes that one should not initially write the blessings in the Megillah. It can be inferred that one may be permitted to insert the vowels and punctuation into the Megillah if he doesn’t know how to read the Megillah otherwise.

The Gr”A rules however, that it is forbidden to place the vowels into the Megillah.

The Maharsham rules that one should not draw pictures on the margins of a Megillah.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein comments that if a person cannot read the Megillah without punctuation and vowels written in, one may insert them in the verses and words that if they are read incorrectly would invalidate the reading.

The Aruch Hashulchan (691:14) rules that it is preferential to read the Megillah without the trop than to write the trop inside the Megillah.

Perhaps one can write the vowels and the trop on a piece of paper and tape it to the Megillah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 27 - NOTEBOOK WITH TORAH AND CALCULATIONS

What is the halacha regarding a notebook that has in the beginning mundane matters and at the end has sacred matters? Would there be a prohibition against putting the notebook down in a manner that the sacred matters are on the bottom?

Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 282:19) rules that it is forbidden to place the Prophets on top of a Torah if they are two separate scrolls, but if they are in one scroll, there would be no prohibition to have the Prophets on top.

This scenario could be allowed only because they are both sacred matters, however, when one is sacred and the other mundane, perhaps it would be prohibited. (Chashukei Chemed)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 22 - Concern for Burdening the Congregation

The Gemora proceeds to discuss the other part of the incident that transpired with Rav in Bavel. Rav was in Bavel on a public fast day. When the congregation fell on their faces to recite tachanun, Rav did not fall on his face.

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t Rav fall on his face to recite tachanun?

The Gemora answers: It was a stone floor and there is a biblical prohibition against prostrating oneself upon stones except in the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Gemora asks: The entire congregation should have avoided falling on the floor as well?

The Gemora answers: The stones were only in front of Rav.

The Gemora persists: Rav should have went to where everyone else was and fall there?

The Gemora answers: Rav did not want to burden the congregation by walking past them; they would be compelled to stand up for him (out of respect).

The sefer Reach Dudaim comments: Although prostrating during tachanun is a mitzva, Rebbe did not want to burden the congregation to stand up for him. This was not an act of piety on Rebbe’s account since it involved a leniency in his own mitzva; rather it is preferable according to halacha to be mevatel some specifics of the mitzva and not disrupt the congregation.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein makes a correlation between this Gemora and the following shaila: A congregation does not begin the tefillah until the Rabbi enters the synagogue. The Rabbi was walking to the synagogue when he realized that he had forgotten his lulav and esrog in his house. Should he reverse himself to get the lulav and esrog in order to have them by Hallel or would the time it would take be an unnecessary burden on his congregation? Rav did not perform the mitzva of tachanun in its proper way because he was concerned of burdening the congregation, so here too, the Rabbi should not cause the congregation to wait for him even though it will diminish somewhat his mitzva of Hallel.

However, he concludes that perhaps tachanun is different. The Tur writes (O”C 131) that tachanun is not an obligation like other portions of tefillah and this is why it is not recited when a choson (groom) is there. That is why Rav conceded part of the tachanun on the account of the congregation. This principle would not have been applicable if tachanun was compulsory. Shaking the lulav and esrog during the recital of Hallel is an essential part of the mitzva of the lulav and esrog and perhaps would override the burdening on the congregation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 19 - EXCESSIVE HAMAN BANGING

The Rosh Yeshiva of Gateshead declared immediately prior to the reading of the Megillah: I have instructed the reader of the Megillah not to have in mind those individuals who disturb the reading of the Megillah due to excessive noisemaking during the klapping of Haman.

One can inquire if anyone at all fulfilled their obligation of hearing the Megillah. The Rama (581:1) rules that a chazzan is required to have everyone in mind during his prayers and if he has an enemy and decides to exclude him, even his friends will not have discharged their obligation of tefillah. The Mishna Berura (53:57) rules accordingly. If so, how will the remainder of the congregation fulfill their obligation of hearing the Megillah if the reader intended to exclude several people?

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein makes the following distinction. The Chavos Yair (186) explains the ruling of the Rama: The chazzan is an emissary from the congregation and he was sent to discharge the obligation for everyone. If he changes and resolves to exclude an individual, he is no longer considered their agent. Reb Shlomo Kluger cites the Magen Avraham (53:22) that a chazzan must remove from his heart any jealousy or hatred towards any individual; if he decides to exclude someone, this indicates that he has not removed the hatred from his heart and he is disqualified from being a chazzan.

The Rosh Yeshiva has the jurisdiction to decide who should be included in the congregation and who shouldn’t be. The Chavos Yair’s reason is not applicable here because the reader of the Megillah is not altering anything and he is doing precisely what he has undertaken to do. Rav Shlomo Kluger’s reason is also not applicable because here he does not bear any grudge against anyone at all.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 20 - Being Filmed while Engaged in Rescue Work

When You Go Out to War — HaRav Yitzchok Silberstein Discusses Questions Arising During Wartime

Dei'ah VeDibur

Question Five: Being Filmed While Engaged in Rescue Work

Is it correct for a Hatzalah worker to be filmed while selflessly rescuing the wounded, in order to provide a good example to others, or for fundraising purposes?

Answer: The gemora (Kesuvos 66) brings the following story. Rabban Yochonon ben Zakai was riding a donkey out of Yerushalayim and his disciples were following him on foot. He saw a young woman — the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion — gathering barley grains from among the dung dropped by the Arab's animals. He asked her, "What happened to your father's wealth?"

She replied, "Rabbi, don't they say this parable in Yerushalayim — To `salt' [i.e. preserve] money, deduct from it [by giving tzedokoh]?"

The gemora asks, "Didn't Nakdimon ben Gurion give tzedokoh? The beraissa says that when he left his house to go to the beis hamedrash they would spread pieces of lace beneath his feet and the poor would then come and fold them up." It answers, "You could say that he did this for his own honor, or you could say that he didn't do as much as he could have done."

Kovetz Shiurim (Kesuvos siman 224) asks on this gemora from Rashi in Pesochim (8) who writes that when a person does a mitzvah, intending both to fulfill the mitzvah and to derive benefit, he is still worthy of being called a complete tzaddik. He explains that we would have to say that here Nakdimon had only his own honor in mind — a very difficult assertion, in light of the fact that his name is explained (Gittin 56) as a reference to an incident when Heaven showed him special favor as a result of his generosity (Taanis 20).

Alternatively, to do a mitzvah for one's own honor is worse than hoping to derive personal benefit from it, as is the case in Pesochim. The former is akin to serving Hashem in partnership, as the Chovos Halevovos writes.

The Chofetz Chaim [however,] cites the gemora in Menochos (41) which says that at a time of Divine wrath, punishment is meted out for things that are normally not [immediately] punishable.

The incident related by the gemora in Kesuvos took place around the time of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh which was unparalleled as a time of Divine wrath; thus Nakdimon's punishment was much worse than it would ordinarily have been.

With regard to our case, at a time of war one should serve Hashem by practicing `pure' kindness towards others without any ulterior motive and it should be done quietly and privately. If Hatzalah need such footage in order to help them raise funds they can film their worker but they should obscure his face so that his deeds remain untainted [by pride] — Nakdimon ben Gurion was also a great man yet he fell prey [to this]. If the Hatzalah worker is pure- hearted he may be filmed.

Read more!