Halachos of the Daf - Bava Basra 91

Fasting and Blowing Trumpets


The Torah commands us to blow trumpets when a community faces a calamity or danger. In such circumstances, we fast and pray as well, in order that Hashem should have mercy on us.

The reason we blow trumpets explains the Chinuch, is because a person needs to be jolted out of his complacency.

The Pri Megadim elaborates: The whole point of blowing trumpets and praying when there is an impending calamity is so that we take to heart the fact that everything that happens is from Hashem, even the calamity that is imminent. Therefore we fast and pray, and most of all repent, and Hashem will take away the danger. The primary reason why Hashem sent it in the first place is to get us to repent.

There are many different types of dangers that would require us to fast and blow trumpets. Among them include the following:

1) A non-Jewish army is on the way to wage war against the Jews, or to impose taxes, or to forcibly take away a piece of land, or even if they would decree that Jews may no longer adhere to a particular Mitzvah.

2) A plague that kills people (even non-Jews), or pigs. Pigs are of concern since they have similar intestines to people, therefore we are afraid that the plague will travel to people.

3) If the price of any item (or items) which is largely the sole profit of the region, would plummet to nearly half the price. Although at first glance this would seem to be good news, since the poor can now afford these items, it is a serious calamity, for without this item being sold at the regular profit, the population will find themselves in a depression.

Whenever a fast day was instituted, there was a specific schedule. From after Shacharis until midday - the Beis Din would analyze the actions of the community, to determine if there was any area that could use strengthening. If they would find a problem, they would immediately fix it. From after midday until nightfall – in the first half the community would read from the Torah and Neviim, and in the second half the community would pray Mincha intensely.

Read more!

Is it Mutar to Cheat (just a little)?

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The braisa had stated: If it is an issar less, it is forbidden.

Abaye explains this to mean that the coins cannot be used at its face value if the sela became lacking by an issar more than its price fraud limit.

Rava challenges this interpretation, for if it is even a little more than the limit, it cannot be used at its face value!?

Rather, Rava understands it to mean that if the sela became deficient by an issar to a dinar, it cannot be used any longer at its face value. This would be an anonymous ruling which follows Rabbi Meir’s viewpoint.

Tosfos understands in Rashi that one would be permitted to defraud his fellow if it is less than a sixth, even in a case where he does not intend to return the overcharge. This is because the defrauded party, because it is insignificant, is immediately mochel the “cheater.” It would be permitted to charge exactly a sixth more than its price only if he intends to return the overchatge within the time it would take the other party to show the purchase to a merchant.

The Ritva writes that it is forbidden to defraud your fellow in cases where it is precisely a sixth. This is because people are generally particular regarding these things.

The Ramban maintains that it is forbidden even if it is less than a sixth, for one is not allowed to defraud his fellow whatsoever. If it was less than a sixth, the sages ruled that he is exempt from paying it back. That does not make it permitted.

The Chinuch holds that there is no Biblical prohibition when one defrauds his fellow less than a sixth.

Read more!

Nezirus from Birth

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir Daf 47) states: A Kohen Gadol and nazir cannot become tamei to their relatives, but they can become tamei to a meis mitzvah. If they were traveling together and they happened across a meis mitzvah, (who should become tamei)? Rabbi Eliezer says: The Kohen Gadol should become tamei and not the nazir. The Chachamim say: The nazir should become tamei instead of even an ordinary Kohen becoming tamei. Rabbi Eliezer told them: Let a Kohen become tamei as he does not have to bring a korban for becoming tamei, and do not let the nazir become tamei, as he will have to bring a korban! They answered him: Better that the nazir should become tamei, as his holiness is not forever, as opposed to a Kohen, whose holiness is forever!

The Tosfos Yom Tov asks in the name of his son: We learned above (28b) that a father can impose upon his son a nezirus vow, and he is even allowed to render him a permanent nazir, like we find by Shmuel. It emerges that a nazir can be a nazir forever! Why did the Mishna not differentiate between a nazir forever and an ordinary nazir? The halacha that the nazir should become tamei before the Kohen Gadol should only apply by an ordinary nazir!

The Tosfos Yom Tov answers: We are compelled to say that the nezirus does not take effect immediately upon birth, for as long as the son does not know how to be careful with respect to the halachos of nezirus, how can he be rendered a nazir? And even though, when he is first born and his mother is watching him in a crib, but as soon as he is capable of walking, his mother’s surveillance will not be sufficient, for she is preoccupied with her daily chores. Not everyone has the means to hire a full-time babysitter, who will ensure and guarantee that the child will not violate any of the laws of nezirus. We therefore must say that nezirus does not become effective upon the child until he reaches the age of chinuch, where he has the ability himself to make certain that he will not violate the halachos of nezirus. It emerges that there is no case where someone can be a nazir forever, and a Kohen is therefore regarded as one who has a higher level of sanctity.

Read more!

Humility

By Rabbi Yosef Levinson

The Torah details the laws which apply to one who makes a vow to be a nazir. He must refrain from drinking wine and eating fresh grapes and raisins, grapeseeds and skins. He may not shave his hair; rather he must let it grow long. A nazir may also not defile himself by coming in contact with a corpse. And when the term of his vow has ended, and the nazir wishes to revert to his former life, he must first shave off all his hair and then bring korbanos, offerings, to Hashem. In total, there are ten mitzvos pertaining to the nazir (Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvos 368:377).

The mitzvos which are enumerated in the parsha of nazir were given by Hashem in order to provide a means of self-sanctification for one who wishes to do so. The Chinuch (mitzva 374) writes that by abstaining from wine, one breaks his desires and humbles himself. (While one's main focus should be on spiritual pursuits, nevertheless one should not ignore his physical needs. Abstaining from wine allows the nazir to break his desires in a manner that is not detrimental to his health, Sefer HaChinuch, ibid.)

The Chinuch adds that this is also why the nazir must let his hair grow long. By not concerning himself with his appearance, he humbles himself. Similarly, the nazir shaves his hair completely at the end of his nazirus because there is no doubt that either, extremely long hair or totally bald distorts the appearance of man.

The Chinuch proves that the purpose for growing the hair is to subdue the yetzar hara, evil inclination from the following anecdote recorded in the Gemara (Nedarim 9b). "Shimon Hatzaddik (who was the Kohen Gadol) related that once a certain nazir appeared before him. The man had beautiful eyes, was very good looking and his locks were arranged in curls. Shimon Hatzaddik asked him: 'Why do you make a vow of nazirus, which necessitates that you destroy your beautiful hair?' (For he will be required to shave his head at the end of his nazirus.) The man replied: 'I was a shepherd for my father. Once I went to draw water from the well and gazed at my reflection in the water. My yetzer hara seized me and wished to drive me from the world. I said - Rasha (wicked one), why are you conceited in a world that is not yours, with one who is destined to be consumed by maggots and worms? I swear that I will shave you for the sake of Heaven.' "

The Steipler Gaon, HaRav Y. Y. Kanievsky zt"l observes that although the shepherd did not mention the sin that the yetzer hara was enticing him to transgress, nevertheless from his response to himself, we see that he was concerned lest he become conceited. Indeed there is nothing that can drive one from both this world and the next, other than ga'ava, haughtiness. As it is written: "It is an abomination to Hashem, all who are haughty in their heart (Mishlei 16:5)." Chazal also say that regarding one who is conceited, Hashem says: "I and him cannot live in the world together" (Sota 5a). The Shechina departs from a ba'al ga'ava and he is left to his own defenses to combat his yetzer hara and survive in this world.

The Steipler continues that when one is praised for his accomplishments, he is overjoyed. At times, he might let this joy "go to his head" and he begins thinking that he is deserving of honor. One must be wary lest he fall into the trap of haughtiness. We see how this shepherd trembled when he saw his handsome features and realized that it might lead him to ga'ava. He therefore took an oath of nazirus.

HaRav Yerucham Levovitz zt"l points out that growing one's hair can have the opposite effect and can lead to ga'ava as is evident from Shimon Hatzaddik's story. It all depends on one's intent. One may become obsessed with his appearance and become conceited. Hashem despises such a person. On the other hand, if one lets his hair grow so that he appears disheveled, he will be humbled. Such an individual is Kadosh L'Hashem, holy to Hashem. Moreover, the hair itself becomes kadosh. This is meant literally - the law states that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from the hair of a nazir. Thus, the status of the nazir's hair is similar to the status of Kodashim (articles sanctified for the Beis Hamikdash).

This is the lesson of the nazir. We must realize the significance of humility. In addition, the nazir teaches us that we have the ability to elevate and sanctify ourselves. If by abstaining from wine and letting one's hair grow, a nazir is sanctified, all the more so, one who sincerely undertakes to improve himself and tackle his desires and bad character traits, is Kadosh and beloved to Hashem.

Daf Hashavua Kollel Beth HaTalmud Copyright (c) 2002 by Rabbi Yosef Levinson and reprinted here with permission

Read more!

Blessing by a Bas Mitzvah

The Rema (O”C 225:2) writes that one whose son is becoming bar mitzvah should recite the following blessing: Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, that You freed me from the punishment due this boy. He concludes that it is preferable to recite this blessing without mentioning Hashem’s name.

The question is asked: Why is this blessing not recited when one’s daughter becomes bas mitzvah?

The Peri Megadim states that it would depend on what the reason is for this blessing.

The Magen Avraham (ibid; 5) explains this blessing as follows: Up until this juncture, the father was punished when his son sinned because he obviously did not train him well enough. Once the child becomes an adult, he is responsible for his own actions.

The Levush, however, interprets this blessing in the exact opposite manner. Up until now, the child gets punished for the sins of his father, as the Gemora Shabbos (32b) states: For the sin of unfulfilled vows, a person’s children die when they are young. The meaning of the blessing is that his son will now not incur any punishments on account of the parents.

According to the Levush, there is no reason to make any distinction between a son and a daughter. However, according to the Magen Avraham, we can say that the blessing is only applicable to a son, where there is an obligation of chinuch. However, a father does not have a mitzvah of chinuch for a daughter and therefore there is no reason to recite the blessing when she becomes bas mitzvah.

The Kaf Hachayim writes that we can apply a different logic according to the Magen Avraham. It is customary for a father to sustain his daughter until she is married and therefore, she is naturally under his jurisdiction until then. He is capable of rebuking her until she marries and will be under the jurisdiction of her husband. He therefore does not recite the blessing when she becomes bas mitzvah since he is still rebuking her.

He explains according to the Levush as well. The Levush said that the reason for the blessing is because up until then, the son gets punished for the sins of his parents. It is possible to say that a daughter, who is already under the mazal of her husband, as it is said: It is announced in heaven, “The daughter of So-and-So will be married to So-and-So,” his mazal will benefit her that she will not be punished on account of her father’s sins.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein questions this explanation from our Gemora (Kesuvos 78a). The Gemora states: In the Beis Medrash of Rabbi Yannai, they replied: In the first case, it was into her possession that the property had come (prior to becoming an arusah, she is the legal possessor of whatever is given to her); in the latter case, the property came into his possession. I, however, do not understand his question. It seems that he understands the words “z’chuso and z’chusa” to mean “whose mazal caused the property to fall to her.” The simple explanation in our Gemora is in whose jurisdiction was the woman when the properties fell to her.

Read more!

Carrying a Siddur on Shabbos - Yevamos 114 - Daf Yomi

The following is a discussion from Meorot HaDaf HaYomi: In places without a kosher eiruv, it is forbidden to carry outside on Shabbos. Today, most shuls are well stocked with siddurim. However, in generations gone by, people had to bring their own siddurim from home. It was then a common question how to daven in shul on Shabbos, if one could not carry his siddur from home. R’ Akiva Eiger was once asked if a child could be given a siddur to carry to shul for his parents. For their own benefit: As we learn in our sugya, children may not be fed forbidden foods. Similarly, they may not be encouraged to transgress other prohibitions. However, the Rashba rules that this applies only to Torah prohibitions. Children may be encouraged to transgress a Rabbinic prohibition. As a proof, the Rashba cites the Gemara (Shabbos 139a), that forbids encouraging a child to sow kilayim (mixed seeds) even outside of Israel, where the prohibition is only Rabbinic. The Gemara explains that he might get accustomed to this habit, and continue even after he grows up. From here it seems that only because of this fear, do we forbid encouraging a young child to sow Rabbinically forbidden kilayim. The general prohibition against encouraging children to sin, seems not to apply. The Rashba adds that the fear of him getting accustomed to sin applies only when we ask him to sin for our sake. When we ask him to do something for his own benefit, this does not apply. (For this reason, we encourage children to eat on Yom Kippur). Our streets are not reshus harabim: Accordingly, R’ Akiva Eiger rules that although many Poskim hold that our streets are generally not reshus harabim by Torah standards (since they are not regularly traveled by 600,000 people), it is still forbidden to ask a child to carry a siddur for an adult to use. We may only ask him to carry a siddur for himself, and then look along inside with him (Teshuvos R’ Akiva Eiger 15, cited in Biur Halacha 343). It will not lead to a Torah prohibition: In his public lectures, the Maharam Shick warned against asking children to carry outside where there is no eiruv. However, in his writings he finds some room to be lenient. He explains, based on the Rashba, that the general prohibition against encouraging children to sin does not apply to Rabbinic prohibitions. Furthermore, the concern that he might get accustomed to sin applies only to Rabbinic sins whose Torah counterparts are common. For example, kilayim is forbidden by Rabbinic law in the Diaspora, and forbidden by Torah law in Eretz Yisroel.

However, the Torah prohibition of carrying was almost inapplicable in the Maharam Shick’s time, since there were no roads commonly traveled by 600,000 people. Therefore, perhaps small children may be asked to carry for their parents (Teshuvos Maharam Shik, 173).

The Shulchan Aruch’s ruling: This question is relevant only according to the Rashba, who rules that there is no general prohibition against encouraging young children to transgress Rabbinic prohibitions. However, the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 343) follows the opinion that even this is forbidden. Therefore, there is certainly no room to permit asking a child to carry for an adult, even in a Rabbinically forbidden area.

Chinuch: Furthermore, this discussion concerns only children who are too young to be educated in mitzva observance. Nevertheless, our sugya forbids feeding them Torah prohibited foods. Here, the Rashba rules that Rabbinically prohibited foods may be fed to them. However, the Rashba certainly agrees that once a child has reached the age to be educated in mitzva observance, his father must teach him to observe all the mitzvos – both Torah and Rabbinic. Therefore, he may not carry a siddur even for himself (see Mishna Berura 343 s.k. 3). R’ Akiva Eiger seems to apply that the obligation of chinuch in mitzva observance begins at age nine. The Maharam Shick suggests that perhaps asking a child to carry a siddur to shul is also considered good chinuch, even if there is no eiruv, since one is educating him to daven.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - Forging our own Happiness

I happened on an interesting article pertaining to the daf, parenting and happiness. This is from http://Rabbi Abraham J. Twersky

Some of the theories that have been popularized in recent times seem to indicate that it is the parents’ sacred obligation and responsibility to make sure that their children are happy. If a child mopes or otherwise shows any signs of being unhappy, this triggers a guilt trip within the parents: “What am I doing that is wrong?” There seems to be a prevailing attitude that “Life is going to be hard enough on these kids when they grow up. Let them at least have a happy childhood.” The logic of this attitude may appear convincing, but it is misguided. Many youngsters have picked up on this theme, and if happiness eludes them, they may try to find it through the use of marijuana or other mind-altering substances.

The true parental responsibility toward a child is not to provide him with happiness, but with chinuch, a preparation for life, and a preparation for reality. The Torah tells us that G-d relates to us as a Father to a child (Deuteronomy 8:2-10), and although G-d is Omnipotent and could certainly have given the Israelites an immediate and permanent euphoria, he nevertheless disciplined them while providing for their essential needs.

There is indeed a mitzvah to “rejoice . . . and be happy” (Deuter-
onomy 16:14, 15), but the word mitzvah means a commandment, or something which a person must do. Joy and happiness are something we must work to achieve, rather than something G-d gives to us. It is no different with human parents. We must provide our children with the skills and resources to enable them to function optimally in the real world, but happiness is something that only they can achieve. Parents cannot give children happiness.

There is a great deal of emphasis in the news these days on child abuse, and unfortunately, some parents are capable of traumatizing their children. We must be careful that in our abhorrence of child abuse, we do not go to the other extreme of overindulgence, of considering every sign of displeasure as a failure on our part to make the child happy. Such an attitude may result in a spoiled but unhappy child, and a frustrated, guilt-ridden parent.

Let us reiterate. It is the parental responsibility to provide children with the tools for an optimal adjustment to the real world, to be independent learners, and to be people who can overcome challenges and master situations they have never previously encountered, but feelings of happiness must come from within. It is not our job to give our children happiness, but rather to allow them learning opportunities that give them the skills to gain happiness by themselves, and to regain it when it is temporarily lost.

Since happiness is something that the child must achieve, attempts by the parents to give him happiness rob him of something that can enrich and strengthen him: mastery of difficult situations and fortitude in the face of adversity. As we have pointed out earlier, when parents do something for the child that he can do for himself, this deprives the child of the necessary stimulus for maturation and independence.

Let us look at an example of how a parent might deal with a child’s obvious unhappiness. Sarah, Rivvy’s younger sister, received a beautiful doll for her birthday. Rivvy, who is all of 6 years old, is jealous and upset, because she, too, wants a doll. Should the mother feel guilty because Rivvy is unhappy and buy her a doll too? Should the mother try to talk Rivvy out of her feelings of unhappiness? How should she react if Rivvy starts to cry? Should she feel guilty for giving Sarah a doll as a birthday gift? Is it possible that Rivvy feels unloved? Is it possible that Rivvy will have an emotional scar throughout her life, and be permanently scarred because she did not receive a gift equal to her sister’s?

If the mother feels she must make Rivvy happy, she is in trouble. Unless she succumbs and buys Rivvy a doll, Rivvy will be unhappy. This is the wrong path to take. Instead the mother might point out to Rivvy that she received a dollhouse for her birthday just a short while ago, or she may give her some other fully reasonable explanation. The problem is that when a child is upset, the impact of words, however wise and logical, is unlikely to change the way the child feels. If the mother, like many other parents, is unable to tolerate Rivvy’s distress and tries to fix it right away, which in this case would mean buying Rivvy a doll, she will have failed to prepare the child for reality, because the real world will not give her everything she wants just to keep her happy.

Children may often be unhappy because of many things that displease them, and this is perfectly normal. If parents believe that it is their duty to see that the child is happy, they may interpret this unhappiness as a failure on their part, and they may therefore become angry with the child for being unhappy and making them feel they are a failure as parents. The danger of the “happiness trap” is now evident: Parents may become frustrated and angry, and children may feel helpless and dependent, incapable of making themselves happy, which lowers their self-esteem. If they become totally dependent on their parents to make them happy, the parents’ inability to do so may lead to resentment.

If Rivvy’s mother sees herself as a teacher of happiness skills, and sees it as her job to provide practice opportunities for these skills, she may look at the situation with different eyes. This is a chance for problem solving, generating options, and emotional regulation. The mother reframes the situation for her daughter: This is a challenge, both intellectually as well as emotionally. The mother sees it as her job to lead Rivvy along the way and to facilitate her regaining her emotional equilibrium. The mother would realize that her goal is to dosage the stress and to keep the problem at a level where it is solvable both intellectually and emotionally. If Rivvy is 10, the mother will treat her differently than a 3-year-old. Regardless of the specifics, mother can turn the situation into a learning experience. How does she do this?

First, it is most important that the mother accepts Rivvy’s feelings of hurt and jealousy, even verbalizing them for her. “I know you also wish you had such a doll. Yes, it is hard at times to be at a sister’s birthday. I can remember when I was very hurt that I did not have things that others had.” Instead of trying to fix Rivvy’s feelings, she lets her know that she understands them and can accept them. Mother also has to let Rivvy know that whining or crying and trying to upset everyone is not acceptable. She can remind Rivvy that not everyone in the family gets and needs the same things. By identifying and empathizing with Rivvy, mother defuses the situation.

Most importantly, however, mother is on the alert for the first indication that Rivvy is controlling her jealous feelings, and lets Rivvy know, by a smile, a nod, or a special word, that she is truly a great girl. By not giving and by not fixing, mother is helping Rivvy develop strengths and competencies. The mother herself is not in a situation where she feels a failure because her child is unhappy. The mother thus preserves the relationship between herself and her child, and in this fashion gives her a lot more than the mother who burns herself out trying to keep her children happy all the time.

The regulation of feelings, sometimes called affective regulation, is a very important skill that underlies happiness in life. We can model this skill for our children, but we cannot do it for them. We can suggest a variety of self-soothing strategies for them and help them think thoughts that are productive and that reduce the conflict, but ultimately the job has to be done by the child himself. Children need to learn to re-align their emotions by practicing this in a variety of situations. This means that a dose of suffering and distress has to be part of a healthy childhood. Teaching the child acceptance of the distress and sincerely celebrating the child’s mastery of his feelings are the psychological task of the parent.

The Talmud repeatedly states that when Jews are in distress, G-d suffers along with them (Taanis 16a). But since G-d is all powerful, why is there any need for Him to suffer at all? He can just relieve our distress so that everyone will be happy. The answer is that similar to a human parent, it is not in our best interest for G-d to make us happy. He provides us with skills and strengths and teachings, but we must forge our own happiness.

A parent has to learn to walk the delicate balance between protecting the child and letting him come to terms with his own feelings. Adults who have not mastered self-regulatory skills in childhood are often very unhappy and at the total mercy of their emotions.

Read more!