Wishing to be Devout

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

Rav Yehudah says (Bava Kamma 30b) : If someone wants to be pious he should fulfill the laws discussed in Tractate Nezikin. Rava says: He should fulfill that which is written in Pirkei Avos (Ethics of our Fathers). Some say: He should fulfill the laws of Tractate Brochos.

The Orach Yesharim explains: The Mishna in Avos (1:2) states: Shimon HaTzadik was from the remnant of the Men of the Great Assembly and he used to say: On three things the world stands on Torah, Service (Avodah), and Acts of Kindliness (Gemilas Chassadim).

Two of these are matters that are between man and Hashem. They are: Torah and Tefillah. Acts of kindness is a matter that is between one man and his fellow. Rav Yehudah is teaching us that in order to be regarded as a devout person, it is not sufficient to be pious in matters that are between man and Hashem. One must be scrupulously ethical in matters that are between his fellow man as well. And quite possibly, he is telling us that a person must first be heedful of respecting his fellow man, and only then can he elevate himself further by fulfilling those laws that govern the relationship between man and Hashem.

In his sefer, Boruch She’amar, Harav Boruch Epstien asks: Why is it that by observing these three areas, one is regarded as devout? Pirkei Avos deals with common sense, practical, and intelligent behavior. Observing the laws of Brochos is also not an issue of piety, since the Gemora (Brochos 35a) states: One who eats without a brocha is robbing from the Almighty." And finally, civil laws that relate to Nezikin, damages, are certainly not issues of piety, but rather of civil obedience!?

He answers, as explained by Reb Hershel Solnica that the Gemora has a deeper and more subtle meaning. In Pirkei Avos, we are taught: A fence to wisdom is silence. This seems to be a matter of common sense. However, a Jew with a soul understands this to mean that not only is silence golden, but words must be measured and be dignified. Too many pious, religious, and fine Jews lose control of their mouth and lavish its use with Lashon Hara, idle talk, and abusive and vulgar language. Brochos is not simply thanking God for what we eat and what we have, but saying that we appreciate these gifts, for were it not for the grace of God, we wouldn’t be able to survive an hour.

Observing civil law – Nezikin - implies more than merely not damaging another’s possessions. It implies that we should consider the money or property of your neighbor as if it were yours. We don’t merely avoid breaking another’s objects. Rather, we care and respect it as we respect our own. These attitudes constitute the core of the soul of a Jew. They do not constitute halachah and they are difficult to concretize, but they are clear to the sensitive eye and heart.

Read more!

Benediction before the Priestly Blessing

The disciples of Rabbi Elozar ben Shamua asked him (Daf Yomi: Sotah 39a) : In reward of what have you been living so many years? He replied: In all my years, I never took a shortcut through a synagogue, and I never stepped over the heads of the holy people (when he went to his seat by passing through the students who sat on the floor; he either arrived first or sat outside), and I never recited the Priestly Blessing without first uttering a benediction.

The Rishonim ask: What is so great about uttering the benediction prior to reciting the Priestly Blessing? Doesn’t every mitzvah require a brocha beforehand? Every Kohen would recite the blessing first!

The Ritva in Megillah (27b) answers that perhaps Rabbi Elozar ben Shamua was teaching us that the Priestly Blessing requires a brocha beforehand, and that any Kohen who blesses Klal Yisroel and recites the benediction first will be blessed with long life.

The Meiri writes that a Kohen will discharge his obligation of reciting the Priestly Blessing even without saying the brocha beforehand. It is nevertheless an enhancement to the mitzvah, and because of that, the Kohen will merit living a long life.

Some commentators explain that he would say the Priestly Blessing several times during the day, and he never neglected to recite the benediction before each and every one.

The Meiri doesn’t agree with this explanation, for he says that one would be obligated to recite a blessing every time, and he would not warrant a reward for this.

The Radal suggests that perhaps other Kohanim maintained that a benediction is not required before the Priestly Blessing, even though an ordinary mitzvah necessitates a brocha. The reason for this exception is because the mitzvah itself is a benediction, and therefore it doesn’t require an additional blessing. This would be similar to the Grace after Meals, which is a blessing in itself, and therefore, it doesn’t require an additional blessing beforehand.

Read more!

Inheritors Reciting Shehechiyonu when they Pay their Father’s Debts

It is ruled in Shulchan Aruch (223:2) that one whose father dies should recite the blessing of dayan ha’emes, the truthful Judge. If there was an inheritance, he should also recite the blessing of shehechiyonu.

The question arises: What would be the halacha if there is an inheritance, but all of the money will be used to pay off the father’s debts? Will the children still recite a shehechiyonu or not?

Our Gemora (Kesuvos 90b) states: We also see that one kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah (a dinar of the estate) can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah (which does not have that value as there is not two dinar in the estate). How is this apparent from the Mishna? Being that the Mishna does not say that the second collection can only occur “if there is an extra dinar (corresponding to this kesuvah).”

Rashi explains: The Mishna taught us that if one set of inheritors is collecting the kesuvah of their mother because her husband died before their mother, this payment is regarded as an inheritance for all of the father’s inheritors, and will therefore be considered as the surplus for the validity of the kesuvah for the male children. Since all inheritors have a mitzvah to repay their father’s debts, they are inheriting it and then paying off the other inheritors. Rashi uses the following expression: There is no greater inheritance than the paying off of the father’s debts.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein states that accordingly, the children will recite the shehechiyonu blessing even though they are left with nothing because there is no greater inheritance than the paying off of the father’s debts.

However, he concludes that there actually is no proof from Rashi for this halachic ruling. Rashi is only explaining the reason why the Gemora considers it an inheritance, and that is because of the logic that there is no greater inheritance than the paying off of the father’s debts. However, in respect to the shehechiyonu blessing, that is a blessing that is only recited when one is rejoicing. Although, one whose father dies and leaves him with an inheritance is not rejoicing at all; he would much rather that his father would not have died altogether (as the Mishna Berura ibid explains), nevertheless, there is a positive result from the inheritance; that is a sufficient enough of a reason to recite the blessing (although it is mixed with pain and anguish). In this case, however, there is no positive advantage to the inheritors with this inheritance at all and therefore, they would not recite the shehechiyonu blessing.

Read more!

Purchasing New Shoes

The Mishna had stated: A husband must provide for his wife a kerchief for her head, a belt for her loins, shoes from festival to festival and clothing of fifty zuz from year to year.

Rav Papa asked of Abaye (Kesuvos 65b): Is it logical that the husband should provide for his wife shoes three times a year, but she only receives new clothing once a year? Isn’t having new clothing for the festival more important than having new shoes?

Abaye answered: The Tanna was located in a mountainous region where one cannot possibly manage with less than three pairs of shoes each year (but clothing would last throughout the year), and indirectly, the Tanna taught us that these shoes should be given to her on the occasion of the festival, so that she might derive joy from them.

The Terumas Hadeshen (36) proves from our Gemora that one should recite the blessing of shehechiyonu when purchasing new shoes, for the Gemora explicitly states that the woman rejoices on account of her new shoes.

R’ Yochanan (Brochos 59b) states that a shehechiyonu is only recited when one purchases significant clothing, but there is no requirement to recite the blessing when purchasing socks and shoes since they are not choshuv.

The Rosh (ibid, 9:16) rules that this halacha is only applicable to a wealthy person; however, a poor man would recite a shehechiyonu when purchasing a new pair of shoes, since for him, it is a tremendous joy.

The Rema (O”c, 223:6) quotes from others that one should not say tevaleh v’tischadesh (you should wear out and you should renew) on a new pair of shoes, for it will require the killing of another animal (to get its hide), and it is written: And He is compassionate on all his creations. He concludes that that this reason is extremely weak and not logical, but many people are careful not to say it.

Read more!

AN UNCERTAIN KOHEN RECITING THE PRIESTLY BLESSING - Yevamos 99 - Daf Yomi

The Mishna discusses a case regarding the child of a Kohenes who became intermingled with her slavewoman's child.

The Shvus Yaakov in his responsa (3) rules that in such a case, each one of the sons will recite the Priestly Blessings and the blessing beforehand. Now, even though, a non-Kohen transgresses a positive commandment by reciting the Priestly Blessing and he will be saying a blessing in vain, since the Priestly Blessing entails three positive commandments, it will override the questionable prohibition.

Reb Yosef Engel in Gilyonei HaShas challenges this ruling: He states that there are not three positive commandments involved in this mitzvah; it is mentioned three times in the Torah. And that which the Shvus Yaakov stated that once he is reciting the Priestly Blessing, he might as well recite the blessing beforehand, why is this different than any time someone performs a mitzvah in a case of uncertainty? He should perform the mitzvah without reciting the blessing!

Read more!

Coffee Heated by a Gentile - Yevamos 46 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states: Anything which is normally eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition against gentile cooking. (Water does not need to be heated and therefore should not be subject to this prohibition.)

The Radvaz in his teshuvos (3:637) writes: It is permitted to drink coffee heated by a gentile and it is not subject to the prohibition against gentile cooking; even though coffee cannot be eaten in its raw state, it is something which does not eaten at a king’s table as an accompaniment to the bread and therefore it is permitted. There is also no concern that they cooked something forbidden in those pots beforehand, since it is well known that they have designated utensils for the coffee (because otherwise, the taste of the coffee would be ruined). He concludes: One should not drink coffee in the accompaniment of gentiles since that will result in many transgressions.

It is brought like that in the Hagahos from the Maharikash (114) as well. He rules that one should be stringent about drinking coffee in a coffee house of gentiles, similar to the halacha regarding wine and beer. Furthermore, it is considered a moishev leitzim (i.e. a session of jesters) and should be avoided.

The Knesses Hagedolah in his sefer Ba’ey Chayei (Y”D 145) disagrees and maintains that coffee heated by a gentile is prohibited to drink. He states: Anything which is eaten or drunk at the royal table by itself, even if it does not come as an accompaniment to the bread is subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking. Furthermore, the requirement that the food must be something that accompanies bread on the royal table is limited to food items, not liquids. He continues: “Even though when I was younger, I would rely on those who ruled that it is permitted, I have now investigated it thoroughly and cannot find a reason for its permission and therefore I refrain from drinking it.” He found that the Arizal prohibited drinking coffee heated by a gentile. He concludes that he is not prohibiting it for the public, but he himself refrained from drinking it.

Pri Chadash (114:6) writes that it is permitted based on Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 31b): Wheat is nullified in water in regards to reciting the blessing of shehakol, so too it is nullified in regards to the prohibition against gentile cooking. Similarly, the coffee is nullified in the boiling water that it is being cooked with and it is therefore not subject to the prohibition against gentile cooking.

Teshuvos Beis Yehudah (Y”D 21) objects to the reasoning of the Pri Chadash. The Gemora Brochos (39a) rules: The proper blessing on water which was cooked with vegetables is ha’adamah and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (205:2). The reasoning is based on the fact that this is the common method for these vegetables. Accordingly, the blessing on coffee should be ha’adamah as well. Our custom of reciting shehakol on coffee is astounding, but we cannot add to this novelty by being lenient with the prohibition against gentile cooking.

Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his sefer Mor U’ktziah (204) writes that actually the proper blessing on coffee should be ha’eitz since it is a fruit from a tree and that was the original intent of those that planted the coffee beans; to drink from the liquid. He concludes that the custom is to recite a shehakol anyway, similar to date beer and barley beer.

Read more!

FROM THEIR MOUTHS AND NOT FROM THEIR WRITING - Yevamos 31 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states that testimony is valid only from the mouths of the witnesses, not on the basis of any documents. It is evident that writing is not the same as talking.

The Gemora Chagigah (10b) cites Shmuel who states that one who resolves to make a vow must express the vow with his lips; otherwise, it is meaningless.

The Noda b’Yehudah (Y”D I: 66) inquires if an oath that was written down but not expressed would be valid as an oath. His underlying question is: Do we regard his written word as an expression of his lips?

This should be dependent on a dispute between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam regarding the validity of testimony from a written document. The Rambam maintains that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and holds that one who is physically capable of testifying may testify through the means of a document.

He concludes, however, that even the Rambam would agree that writing is considered testimony and yet, a written document cannot be accepted by Beis Din. The logic for this is as follows: An act of writing can constitute speech, but only during the time that it is being written. Beis Din will only accept an oral testimony when they hear it directly; hearsay is disqualified. Witnesses who signed a document are testifying, but Beis Din is not present at that time. If they would sign in front of Beis Din, that would be considered valid testimony.

With this principle, you can answer what would seemingly be a contradiction in the Rambam. He rules in Hilchos Eidus (3:7) that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony; yet later in Perek 9:11, he writes that one is required to testify with his mouth or at least that he is fitting to testify with his mouth. This would imply that if he is fitting to testify with his mouth, he would be permitted to testify through the means of a document. According to the Noda b’Yehudah’s explanation, it can be said that the Rambam allows witnesses to testify through the means of a document, but only if they sign the document when Beis Din is present. Accordingly, we can say that an oath taken through writing will be binding.

Reb Akiva Eiger discusses some other practical applications for this principle.

(http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com/2007/05/weekly-shtikle-emor.html) The Weekly Shtikle writes the following: The topic is the discussion as to whether or not writing may qualify as a valid means of fulfilling the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. That is, if one was to write, "Hayom Yom X La'Omer," would that be sufficient to fulfill one's obligation and would this action disallow one from repeating the count with a brachah?

The discussion of this halachic quandary follows an interesting family tree. This issue is first dealt with in Shaalos uTeshuvos of R' Akiva Eiger, siman 29. The teshuvah is actually written by R' Akiva Eiger's uncle, R' Wolf Eiger. Unable to attend his nephew's wedding, he made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. He wrote to his nephew about this halachic issue which was discussed at the banquet. He cites a number of related issues which he builds together to try to reach a conclusion. The gemara (Yevamos 31b, Gittin 71a) teaches that witnesses may only testify by means of their mouths and not by writing. The gemara (Shabbos 153b) states that mutes should not separate Terumah because they cannot say the brachah. It is assumed that writing the brachah would not have been sufficient. Also, there is a discussion amongst the commentaries with regards to the validity of a vow that is written and not recited. R' Wolf Eiger concludes that writing is not a sufficient means of fulfilling the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. However, this sparks a debate between him and his nephew which stretches out to siman 32.

This issue is eventually discussed in Shaalos uTeshuvos Kesav Sofer (Yoreh Dei'ah siman 106) by R' Avraham Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, R' Akiva Eiger's grandson who was, in fact, named after R' Wolf Eiger. He covers a host of related topics and eventually discusses the exchange recorded in his grandfather's sefer. The debate, although it encompasses various pertinent issues, never produces any concrete proof directly concerning the act of counting. However, Ksav Sofer quotes his father, Chasam Sofer, in his footnotes to Shaalos uTeshuvos R' Akiva Eiger (his father- in-law) where he provides a more concrete proof. The gemara (Yoma 22b) teaches that one who counts the number of B'nei Yisroel transgresses a prohibition as it is written (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of B'nei Yisroel shall be like the sand of the sea that shall not be measured nor counted." The gemara cites two examples (Shmuel I 11:8, 15:4) where Shaul HaMelech went out of his way to avoid this prohibition by using pieces of clay or rams in order to perform a census. Chasam Sofer suggests that Shaul could simply have counted the men by writing down the numbers and not saying them. Since Shaul went to far greater lengths, we are compelled to say that writing the number of men would still have qualified as counting them and he would hot have sufficiently dodged the prohibition. Thus, concludes Chasam Sofer, if one has explicit intention to fulfill the mitzvah, writing is a valid means of performing the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. However, Kesav Sofer suggests that perhaps the brachah should not be recited in this case.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 22 - A CONVERT WHO CONVERTS

The Gemora states: A convert who converts is regarded as a newborn baby (and thus has no pre-existing family relationships).

Why does it say “a convert who converts,” wouldn’t it be more correct by saying “a gentile who converts”? He is not a convert until he actually converts.

Margaliyos HaShas quotes from a sefer: At the time that the entire Jewish Nation was standing by Har Sinai to receive the Torah, the souls of all the future proselytes were there, as well. Some converted immediately and others took a long time, but they were all there.

This is the explanation: A convert, one whose soul was present by Har Sinai when the Jewish people received the Torah, and is now converting, is regarded as a newborn baby.

[Interesting readings relevant to converts:

http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/06/understanding-proselytes.html

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/09/convert-in-mourning.html

What brocha does a ger recite in the morning?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 11 - Mitzva of Constructing a Maakeh

The Mishna states: One is permitted to build a fence (maakeh) for a roof or a porch, provided that it is done in an amateur fashion.

The Ritva states that our Mishna is not referring to the mitzva of maakeh since a porch is exempt from the obligation of constructing a maakeh. Furthermore, if there would be a mitzva, he should be permitted to build a maakeh using a professional.

The Gemora in Sukkah (3a) states that if one has a house that is less than four amos squared, he is exempt from building a fence around the roof, for this is not considered a house. The commentators ask that it is still a stumbling block and if one doesn't build a fence there, it will endanger people's lives? The Gemora in Bava Kamma (15b) learns from the passuk of lo sasim damim beveisecha that one should not raise a wild dog in his house or a rickety ladder. Shouldn't he be required to build a fence here because of the possibility of someone falling?

The Chazon Ish (Y”D 214) answers that in truth a roof is not a dangerous area and it is not considered a stumbling block. People who ascend a roof understand beforehand that they must be careful and this is a worldly custom. The Torah, nevertheless mandated that one who builds a house is required to build a fence on the roof and this halacha has its guidelines. A house that is less than four amos squared is not regarded as a house for this halacha.

The Emek Brocha adds that this explains why one is not allowed to build a professional maakeh on Chol Hamoed even though he would be permitted to build and fix other things for the fear of bandits. The lack of a maakeh is not an inherent danger and therefore is not considered a dovor heovud, an irretrievable loss and will not be allowed to build on Chol Hamoed. (This is not like the Ritva we mentioned above.)

Reb Akiva Eiger asks on the obligation to recite a blessing when building a maakeh. Tosfos in Chulin (105a) rules that one does not recite a blessing on mayim acaharonim (water after the meal) for it was instituted for the benefit of man that he shouldn't harm himself due to the melach sdomis (certain type of poisonous salt). It would stand to reason that constructing a maakeh should not have a blessing either, for it is only to prevent damage? Rabbi Dovid Goldberg answers according to the Chazon Ish: A maakeh is not built to prevent damage. In truth, it would not be necessary; the Torah taught us that it is required even if it is merely a distant possibility for a damage occurring, hence a blessing is recited.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 28 - Hallel on Rosh Chodesh

The Gemora cites an incident where Rav visited Bavel and observed that the people were reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. He thought about stopping them since it is only voluntary to recite Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Once he realized that they were skipping certain segments, he said that it is apparent that they are perpetuating their fathers’ custom.

Tosfos states that from this incident, there is proof that a brocha is recited even when the full Hallel is not recited for otherwise, why would Rav have considered stopping them; they weren’t doing anything wrong. Rabbeinu Tam concludes that a brocha is recited on half-Hallel. The Rambam disagrees and maintains that a brocha is not recited on a custom.

Tosfos in Eruchin (10a) states that perhaps Hallel is not recited at all on Rosh Chodesh since it is understood from the Gemora that Hallel is only recited on a day that it is prohibited from working. Rosh Chodesh is referred to as a “Moed,” but one is permitted to work.

Tosfos concludes that half-Hallel is recited on Rosh Chodesh with a brocha beforehand even though the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is merely a custom. Tosfos in brochos (14b) cites the opinion of the Machzor Vitri that a brocha is not recited on a custom.

The Tur (O”C 422) writes that there are several customs regarding the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Some rule that a private individual should not recite Hallel at all but the public should recite Hallel and make a brocha before and after. Some maintain that there is no distinction between an individual and the community and they all recite Hallel without a brocha. Rabbeinu Tam holds that everyone recites Hallel with a brocha.

Most Rishonim maintain that Hallel is recited with a brocha, however different reasons are offered as to why a brocha is recited. Rabbeinu Tam states that a brocha is recited on all customs. Tosfos Rid maintains that a brocha will not be recited on a regular custom but Hallel is different; since the primary recitation of Hallel is compulsory, Hallel on Rosh Chodesh (although it’s only customary) is recited with a brocha. Rabbeinu Manoach states that reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is more than a custom; it is a takana (establishment) and therefore necessitates a brocha. Tosfos HaRosh in Sukkah explains that since Hallel is important, it is akin to reading from the Torah and a brocha should be recited.

Read more!