Placement of the Chanukah Candle

The Shulchan Aruch (H”M 418:12) and the Rambam (Nizkei Mamon 14:13) rule against Rabbi Yehudah, and hold the store owner liable for his Chanukah candle. The reasoning given is that although the store owner had license to put the candle outside, to fulfill the mitzvah of Chanukah, he still is responsible to ensure no damage comes from it.

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 62) discusses whether Rabbi Yehudah’s exclusion of liability in the case of a Chanukah candle indicates that it should be below ten tefachim. The Gemora concludes with a limit of twenty amos. There is discussion in the poskim about reconciling the two measures. The Shulchan Aruch (O”H 671:6), following the Rosh, rules that the optimum placement (l’chatchila) is below ten tefachim, but the absolute limit (b’dieved) is twenty amos. The Gr”a explains that even though the Gemora deflected the proof from the Mishna, we follow the straightforward implication of the Mishna. The Rambam (Chanuka 4:7) only mentions the measure of twenty amos. The Rambam understood that the two measures are a dispute, and ruled like the opinion of twenty amos. The Rambam therefore could have held the store owner liable simply because he should have placed the candle higher, but nonetheless made the more fundamental statement that performing a mitzvah does not exempt a person from damages. This statement is a more general one, and has implications in other cases, as the Gr”a points out (H”M 418:28). The Shaarei Teshuva (O”H 761:8) points out that the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah’s dispute, as detailed in other sources, does not relate to different opinions on the location of the Chanukah candle, but rather on this fundamental question of exemption due to religious activity.

Read more!

Just in Time for Chanukah

The Gemora in Shabbos (21b) states that it is a mitzvah to place the menorah for Chanukah at the entrance to one’s house. During the dangerous times, they would light the menorah on the table inside and that would be sufficient.

What would be the halacha nowadays? Can one light the menorah on his table and with that, fulfill his mitzvah? Do we say that since it is not dangerous now, the halacha reverts back to the original ruling that the menorah must be lit facing outside?

The Dvar Yehoshua offers proof from the beginning of Meseches Kesuvos (3b). There it says that during the dangerous times and onward, they would marry on a Tuesday, and the Rabbis did not protest. The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that even after the danger was over, they still married on a Tuesday. This was because there was a concern that it may return to the dangerous times.

Our Gemora (Kesuvos 89a) states: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger (when the idolaters decreed that mitzvos may not be performed) and onwards, a woman may collect her kesuvah without a get, and a creditor may collect without a pruzbul.

The Rambam in Hilchos shemitah (9:24) rules: If a lender claims that he had a pruzbul and he lost it, he is believed, for from the time of danger and onwards, a creditor may collect without a pruzbul.

The Kesef Mishna explains: Although presently, there is no danger, we do not differentiate between two different times. Accordingly, you might be able to apply the same logic regarding lighting the menorah on a table inside the house even when there is no danger.

The Reshash offers the following comment according to the Kesef Mishna: It is for this reason that the Mishna uses the precise terminology of, “and from the time of danger and onwards.” This teaches us that the halacha is applicable even after the danger is no longer here.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein writes that accordingly, there would be no proof from this halacha to the lighting of the menorah. There, the Gemora states that during the dangerous times, they would light the menorah on the table inside and that would be sufficient. It does not say, “and from the time of danger and onwards.” Therefore, it can be said that one would not fulfill his mitzvah of lighting the menorah if he lights it on the table.

Read more!

MEN LIVE LONGER - Yevamos 38 - Daf Yomi

The Mishna states: If while a woman was awaiting yibum, she inherited property from her father, and subsequently sold it or gave it away, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that it is valid. (Although Beis Hillel rules that a woman who is an arusah may not sell property in which she inherited, the yevamah is permitted to do so.)

The Mishna asks: If she died, what shall they do with her kesuvah and with the property which comes in and goes out with her? (Does the yavam inherit her in the same manner that a husband inherits his wife?) Beis Shamai says: The husband’s heirs divide it with the father’s heirs (the woman’s inheritors). Beis Hillel disagrees: The property remains with those that presently possess it. The kesuvah goes to the husband’s heirs. The property which comes in and goes out with her goes to the father’s heirs.

Tosfos asks: Why is Beis Hillel’s ruling in this case different than the case in Bava Basra? The Mishna there (158a) states: If a house fell on him and on his mother, killing them both, and we are uncertain which one of them died first. The son’s heirs claimed that the mother died first and afterwards the son died. The mother’s heirs claim that the son died first and afterwards the mother died. Beis Hillel rules that the property is divided between them. Why there does he rule to divide the estate and here he rules that the property remains with those that presently possess it?

Tosfos answers: It is more common for a mother to die before the son; the Gemora in Bava Basra (108a) considers it a tragedy when a son dies in the lifetime of the mother. It is for this reason that Beis Hillel rules that the money is divided between them and we do not award the property to the mother’s heirs.

Sheorim Mitzuyanim B’halacha asks: The Gemora in Bava Basra is referring to a case where the son died from a sickness while the mother was alive; the mother is in tremendous grief and sorrow, and that is when it is regarded as a tragedy. In our case, a house fell on top of both of them, and that is a tragedy in itself. Since both of them died, the tragedy is not any more if the son died moments before the mother?

He continues that Tosfos could have said like he said in Kesuvos (52a) in the name of the Yerushalmi: It is common for women to die faster than men do. This is because women are generally weaker due to childbirth and the raising of children.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - MENORAH WITH SEVEN STEMS

One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either.

The sefer Shoel U’meishiv wants to answer the famous Beis Yosef’s question with this halacha. The Beis Yosef asks why do we eight days of Chanukah when the miracle was only for seven days? There was enough oil found for one complete day. He answers that it is forbidden to make a menorah with seven stems. This is forbidden even if it is not in the precise dimensions of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. Chanukah could not be seven days since the menorah couldn’t have seven stems.

Read more!

Yoma 33 Lighting Shabbos candles on the table where you eat

The Gemara states that the Menorah and the Shulchan in the Bais HaMikdash must see each other. The halacha is that the Shabbos candles should be lit where one eats the Shabbos meal. Perhaps the idea is that the Menorah symbolizes wisdom and spirituality, and the Shulchan symbolizes materialism. By placing the Menorah opposite the Shulchan, and by placing the Shabbos lights on the Shabbos table, we are demonstrating that even our physical pleasures are synthesized with our spiritual endeavors.

For more insights on Shabbos, see www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Yoma 33 Touching your Tefillin

The Gemora on 33a cites Rish Lakish that one is not permitted to pass over a mitzvah and that is why the kohen cleans the mizbeach before the preparation of the menorah for the mizbeach is closer to the entrance of the heichal. Rava (33b) states that we can learn from here regarding tefillin that the shel yad should be before the shel rosh. Rashi says that this is referring to the putting on of the tefillin for the arm comes before the head. Rabeinu Tam disagrees and says that it is referring to the removing and placing in the bag, that the shel rosh should be placed first in order that the next day, one should come into contact with the shel yad first. Rabeinu Eliyohu learns that it is referring to the touching of the tefillin during davening. The Shemuas Chaim learns from here that it is not sufficient to touch the straps of the shel rosh, rather one is obligated to touch the bayis itself, for otherwise - one could touch the straps first and then touch the shel yad, for he is not passing over any mitzva.

Is there an inyon perhaps to touch the bayis of the shel yad itself and not merely the sleeve which is covering the shel yad?

Read more!