POST 2000!!!!!!! --- Testimony

Real Estate Testimony

Mar Zutra says that one between thirteen and twenty may testify on matters related to movable property, but not on real estate. Rashbam says that someone that age does not have a clear understanding of transactions involving real estate.

Tosfos (155b Lo amru) disagrees, and says that a lack of business sense should not prevent one from testifying. Instead, Tosfos says that he is only unsuited for a formal appraisal of real estate. Tosfos notes that the Gemora says that one at this age is overly impressed by money, and will therefore underestimate the value of the field.

The Shulchan Aruch (HM 35:3) rules that one who is below twenty, and does not exhibit any business sense, may not testify on real estate cases, seemingly like the Rashbam.

The Shach (3) says that the Shulchan Aruch only is referring to cases of real estate appraisal, in line with Tosfos.

The Gemora says that one under eighteen or twenty may not sell his father’s property.

Rashbam and the Rif say that this is limited to his father’s property, since he will decrease the equity inherent in that property by selling at such a young age. However, if he purchased property himself, he may sell it.

Rabbeinu Tam (155a Mochair) says that this applies equally to his own property, since he will sell it as well for a severely discounted price.

The Shulchan Aruch (HM 235:1) rules like Rabbeinu Tam.

How Old and how Sharp?

Rava rules that if someone understands business, he may sell real estate even before the minimum age. The Shulchan Aruch (HM 235:8) therefore rules that one above the age of thirteen who understands business may sell real estate.

For selling movable property, the Gemora cites the age of pe’utos, at which a child’s transactions are valid. The Gemora (Gittin 59a) defines this as ranging from 6-10, based on the sharpness of the child.

The Shulchan Aruch (HM 235:1) rules that as young as six, if a child understands business, he may conduct transactions.

The Rosh learns that the Gemora in Gittin is stating that until the age of ten we must investigate to see if the child understands enough, but from the age of ten and older, we assume a child understands enough, unless he acts irrationally.

The Rambam does not include the distinction at the age of ten, but simply says that a young child’s transactions are valid, if he understands.

The Gr”a (2) explains that the Rosh learns that the Gemora in Gittin was only requiring a level of sharpness until the age of ten, but not beyond.

The Rambam learns that the Gemora in Gittin is to be read as a continuing list of ages, depending on the sharpness of the child. Although the Gemora stopped at the age of ten, the intent was that at any age between six and thirteen, a child’s transactions may be valid, based on the sharpness of the child.

The Shulchan Aruch rules like the Rambam, while the Rama quotes the Rosh’s distinction.

The Shulchan Aruch (OH 199:10) rules that a boy at the age of pe’utos may be counted as the last one for a zimun.

The Magain Avraham (6) defines this as nine or ten, possibly based on the Rif’s formulation.

The Yechave Da’as (4:13) rules that this can be as young as six, as long as the child understands whom he is blessing.

HALACHOS FROM THE DAF

By: Meoros HaDaf HaYomi

The Testimony of a Minor that could make him Bar Mitzvah

Our sugya explains that a minor cannot serve as a winess, as the Torah says: “And the two men will stand” – i.e., men who are qualified to testify but not minors (the verse could have just said “And the two will stand”).

In his Minchas Chinuch, HaGaon Rav Yosef Babad asks an interesting question: There is a halachic rule that a beis din must accept the testimony of any witnesses who comes to them. Now, as explained in tractate Rosh HaShanah, there is a mitzvah to determine the beginning of each month according to witnesses who testify that they have seen the new moon. The mitzvah was in practice till 4119, when Rabbi Hilel ben Rabbi Yehuda Nesiah – called Hillel II – convened a special beis din to fix our present calendar to overcome the worry that there would not be an expert beis din and other conditions necessary for determining Rosh Chodesh each month, due to the long galus.

The Minchas Chinuch raises the question of two young men who come to beis din at the end of Nisan, claiming they saw the new moon and that that day, then, should be announced as 1 Iyar. The beis din, however, discovers that the witnesses will celebrate their thirteenth birthday on 1st Iyar. As long as the beis din does not announce that day as 1 Iyar, they remain minors but if they accept their testimony, they are considered adults and that day may be announced as 1 Iyar. May or must the beis din accept their testimony?

Indeed, the Minchas Chinuch asserts that the matter is up to the beis din. They may accept the testimony, as once they announce that day as 1 Iyar, the witnesses are retroactively qualified. Still, they are not obligated to accept their testimony, as when they came to the beis din, they were minors (see Minchas Chinuch, ibid, that this solution is according to one answer of Tosfos in Makos 2).

Another question related to our sugya arises from Rashi’s commentary on Bava Kamma 88a (s.v. Pesulah l’edus). Rashi adds his own idea as to why the Torah disqualifies minors as witnesses. A minor, he explains, can’t be punished by beis din and if his testimony is revealed as false, he cannot be penalized. He therefore cannot testify, as the halachah is that a beis din may accept only such witnesses that can be refuted. Why, then, did Rashi feel the need to add to the above exclusion of a minor on the strength of the verse “And the two men will stand” and, on the other hand, since Rashi’s reasoning is so wonderfully valid, why must we learn the halachah from the verse at all?

The Acharonim offer several solutions: HaGaon Rav David Rapaport suggests a case that necessitates Rashi’s reasoning in addition to the halachic interpretation of the verse: If a beis din accepted the testimony of two witnesses and a doubt was later raised as to if they were adults or minors, we must behave as the halachah requires in any instance of a doubt – to act strictly in the case of a prohibition stemming from the Torah. According to Rashi, though, we have no need to behave strictly as the rule is that a beis din cannot punish anyone for a doubtful transgression. The witnesses could have been minors when they testified and, as such, can’t be punished if their testimony is revealed as false. A beis din may accept only such witnesses as can be refuted and their testimony is definitely invalid (Hagahos Tzemach Tzedek on Responsa Rabbi Akiva Eiger, 1st edition, 176).

HaGaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger approaches the question from the other direction. Why do we need the verse if we learn the same halachah from Rashi’s reasoning? Indeed, though, not all testimonies proven false are punishable. Someone who testified, for example, that he saw the new moon and was discovered to have lied did not mean to harm anyone physically or financially and goes unpunished. We need the verse, therefore, to exclude minors from testifying in any instance.

Read more!

Paying for Terumah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cites a braisa: If someone steals terumah but did not eat it, he pays keifel (double) the value of the terumah. If he ate it (accidentally after he stole it), he pays twice the principle plus one fifth. The value of one principle plus one fifth is from chulin produce, and one principle is paid with money according to the value of terumah.

The gemora in Pesachim (32a) is uncertain what the halachah is if one steals terumah from a Kohen and he eats it. Does he pay according to the measure – that is, he pays with unconsecrated produce in the amount of terumah produce that he stole – even if the produce went up in value? Or perhaps he pays according to the value which he stole, and therefore, if the produce price went up in value, he can give less produce which equals the value in which he stole. The Gemora does not resolve this.

The Mishnah Lamelech wonders how it would be evaluated according to value. Do we evaluated how much the stolen terumah itself is worth (which would be less than chulin), or do we view it as if it would have been chulin produce? He cites an opinion of the Ra”sh that it is evaluated as if it would have been chulin produce.

The Tosfos Yom Tov derives from Rashi in our sugya that he pays according to the value of terumah.

The Minchas Chinuch makes the following distinction: If a non-Kohen eats terumah that belongs to him (it was inherited from his mother’s father), he can pay according to the value of terumah, for the payment is not on account of stealing; rather, it is to receive atonement for his sin. However, a non-Kohen who steals terumah and eats it, he must pay according to its value as if it would be chulin produce. This is because of the following: If he would pay a lesser amount of chulin produce, immediately after he designates the produce for payment, which serves as his atonement, the produce becomes terumah. This would cause the price to drop, and it would emerge that he is paying less than the value of terumah in which he stole.

Read more!

Humiliation with Words

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 91) stated: If someone spat at his friend and the spittle hit him, or he removed the hair covering of a woman or his friend’s cloak, he is required to pay him/her four hundred zuz. Rav Papa taught: This is only if the spittle reached his friend, but if it only hit his clothes, he is exempt from paying this fine.

The Gemora asks: Shouldn’t the perpetrator be liable similar to one who humiliates his fellow with words? The Gemora answers: It is evident from here that one who embarrasses his fellow with words is exempt from any liability.

The Rosh cites Rav Shrira Gaon: Although it seems from the Scriptural verses that one is not liable for humiliating his fellow with words, nevertheless, the Sages would excommunicate him until he appeases his fellow properly according to his honor. He notes that it is logical to assume that there is a higher degree of embarrassment for one who is humiliated with words more than one, who was embarrassed through a wound, for there is nothing worse than slandering one’s fellow.

The Rambam (Hilchos Chovel 5:7) rules that one who admits in Beis Din that he wounded his fellow privately, he will be liable to pay for the embarrassment, for even though the victim was not humiliated at the time of the wounding, he was humiliated at the time of the admission in Beis Din.

The Minchas Chinuch (49:7) asks: Isn’t this a classical case of embarrassing one’s fellow with words, and one is not liable for such humiliation?

Read more!

Like "his Arrows"

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

Rabbi Yochanan said: One is liable on the damage caused by his fire on account of it being “his arrows” (it is as if he shot out an arrow which caused damage).

The Nimukei Yosef explains that this is why one is permitted to light candles Friday afternoon even though they will be burning on Shabbos; since the candles were lit from before Shabbos, which is when he shot the arrow.

The Minchas Chinuch explains further: According to Rabbi Yochanan, he is liable for the moment that he set the fire ablaze. Just as one who shoots an arrow is liable for the shooting of the arrow even though the damage which occurs afterwards is now unavoidable; so too it is with respect to one who lights a fire. Accordingly, a halachah would emerge as follows: If one lit a fire and before it had a chance to do damage he died, the inheritors would be obligated to pay (from the properties of the deceased), since the reason for liability was already completed while the lighter was still alive. This is only true if “his arrows” did not cease (when there was a fence preventing the fire from spreading, and the fence fell down after he died). However, if “his arrows” ceased before he died, they will be exempt from liability. As long as the heirs did not know about the fire, they would not be liable, for if they did know about it, and they could have prevented the fire from damaging, they will be liable, for it is their property that is damaging.

Read more!

Kodoshim Damaging

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

Rabbi Abba(Bava Kamma 13) says: If shelamim damage, one collects from their meat (which is eaten) and not from their limbs (which is burnt on the mizbe’ach).

The Ketzos Hachoshen asks: Why, even according to Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, who holds that kodshim kalim are not the property of the High, should one be liable to pay for the damages? It is forbidden to derive pleasure from this animal, and something that is forbidden to derive benefit from is regarded as if it is ownerless!?

The Minchas Chinuch notes that this question is only according to the Rishonim, who maintain that something that is forbidden to derive benefit from is regarded as if it is ownerless. However, there are Rishonim who hold that one is considered the owner on things that are forbidden for benefit; it is just that it is not regarded as being under his domain. Accordingly, one would still be liable if his korban shelamim damaged.

Reb Shimon Shkop distinguishes between two types of items that are forbidden for pleasure. There are things that the Torah requires one to destroy. Such items are considered ownerless, and one cannot betroth a woman with those items. However, there are other items that are forbidden to derive benefit from because they are designated for a mitzvah, such as a sukkah during the holiday of Sukkos, tefillin and korbanos – these items are regarded as his. One would be allowed to sell them, for that does not retract from the mitzvah – it does not contradict that which it was designated for. One would be permitted to betroth a woman with a korban. This is why he would be liable if his shelamim damaged.

Read more!

Follow the Father - Kiddushin 67

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The braisa states: How do we know that if a male from any nation (other than the seven nations of Canaan, where by the other nations, the prohibition of “you shall not spare the life of any soul” does not apply) cohabited with a Canaanite woman (where the prohibition of “you shall not spare the life of any soul” does apply) and had a child; one is permitted to purchase that child as a slave (for he follows the father’s nationality and we are not obligated to kill him)? The braisa answers: It is written [Vayikra 25:44]: And also from among the children of the residents who live with you, from among them you may purchase slaves. One might have thought that even if a Canaanite male cohabited with a woman from any of the other nations and had a child; one would be permitted to purchase that child as a slave. It is therefore written [ibid.]: ….whom they begot in your land. The Torah teaches us that one may purchase slaves only from those who were born in your land to Canaanite mothers from non-Canaanite fathers, but not from among those children who were born abroad to non-Canaanite mothers from Canaanite fathers, and who later returned to reside in your land with their fathers.

The Minchas Chinuch writes that the halachah of following the male by the other nations is only if the child was born from an idolater woman; however, if she converted while she was pregnant, the child is legitimate and he does not follow the father, provided that the mother is permitted to join the congregation. He adds that even according to those who hold that the fetus is not regarded as the “thigh of the mother,” nevertheless, the lineage of idolaters is determined only after their birth, but as a fetus, they are not accorded the status of the father. And therefore, in this case, the child was born as a Jew, and therefore he follows the mother.

This halachah is applicable even in a case which causes us to rule stringently. If the father would be from a nationality which is permitted to join the congregation and the mother was an Egyptian woman, and she converted while she was pregnant, the child will be accorded the status of its mother and would therefore be ruled to be a second-generation Egyptian.

Read more!

Honoring Parents; Bein Adam l’Makom, or Bein Adam l’Chaveiro?

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 32a)inquires: From whose money are the needs of the parents provided for? [Do the children pay with their own money, or are they just responsible to ensure that their parents are taken care of?]

Rav Yehudah says: The son must pay for it. Rav Nosson bar Oshaya says: The father must pay for it.

Reb Zeidel Epstein in the sefer Afikei Ayil writes that their argument is based upon the following question: Is the mitzvah of honoring one’s father and mother a mitzvah which is between man and Hashem, and therefore the son would be obligated to use his own money just like any other mitzvah? Or perhaps the mitzvah is one that is between man and his fellow, and therefore one would not be required to use his own money.

The Dvar Yaakov asks: If it is a mitzvah that is between man and his fellow, the son would not be required to disrupt his work in order to honor his father!?

Rather, he explains: Everyone agrees that it is in the category of a mitzvah which is between one man and another, but Reb Boruch Ber explains that even in those mitzvos one would be required to spend money, provided that the money being spent is a part of the mitzvah, such as the mitzvah of giving charity. The dispute in the Gemora is regarding this point. Is the money being spent to honor one’s father a part of this mitzvah, or not?

The Minchas Chinuch writes that if honoring one’s parents is included in the category of mitzvos that are between people, Yom Kippur would not atone for these transgressions unless one would appease his father and mother beforehand.

The Ramban writes that the Ten Commandments were written on two tablets. This illustrates to us that the first five are different than the second five. The purpose of the first five is to honor Hashem. Honoring your parents is included in this category because when one honors his parents he is in fact honoring Hashem, for the parents were Hashem’s partners in the child’s creation.

Read more!

Women Plowing during Shemitah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora in Moed Katan presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar whether one would incur the thirty-nine lashes if he would plow during Shemitah.

Rashi (2b) states that there is a positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemitah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From plowing and harvesting you shall desist. The point of contention between the two Amoraim is if there is a negative commandment as well.

The Rambam in Hilchos Shemitah rules that one who plows during Shemitah does not incur the thirty-nine lashes. Kesef Mishna explains: Since in our Gemora, it was left ambiguously regarding which Amora held what, we cannot administer the lashes when there is uncertainty.

Sha’ar Hamelech in the beginning of Hilchos Shemitah writes that the Yerushalmi in Shabbos (7:2) states that Rabbi Yochanan is the one who maintains that he does not receive the lashes and the rule is that when Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar argue, the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan.

Minchas Chinuch (112) comments that women are obligated in this mitzvah even though it is a positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time. He explains that this is applicable only regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like Shemitah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz).

Proof to this is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a). The Gemora rules based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a verse necessary; circumcision is a positive mitzvah which is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah which is not related to the person themselves; this principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Read more!

Half and Half

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Gittin 38a) relates an incident: There was a certain slavewoman in Pumbedisa who was used by men for sinful acts. Abaye said: Were it not that Rav Yehudah has said in the name of Shmuel that whoever emancipates his Canaanite slave violates a positive commandment, I would compel her master to write an emancipation document for her.

Ravina said: In such a case, Rav Yehudah would agree that this is proper, in order to prevent the immorality.

The Gemora asks: Shouldn’t Abaye permit this as well? But Rav Chanina bar Rav Katina has said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak: There was an incident regarding a certain woman who was half slavewoman and half free woman (she had two masters, and one of them freed her), and they forced her master to make her a free woman. And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: It was because people were acting immorally with her!?

The Gemora answers: In that case, she was not suitable to marry a slave or a free man; here, they could have designated a slave for her, and he would have protected her (therefore, there is no reason to free her).

The Minchas Chinuch (§ 347) asks from this Gemora on the Rashba, who holds that there is no prohibition against freeing a half slave, half free man because of his “free half.” If so, what is the Gemora asking on Abaye from the case of the half slavewoman and half free woman? Abaye would concede there that it is permitted to free her because she is already half free!?

The Oneg Yom Tov (§ 51) answers that the Rashba only said that regarding a slave, where his free half is obligated in more mitzvos than his slave half, for if he gains his freedom, he will have the ability to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation. The Torah, therefore, did not obligate the master to work him forever. However, by a slavewoman, who will not have the mitzvah of procreation even if she gains her freedom, the prohibition against emancipating her remains!

Read more!

Name of Hashem Written without the Proper Intent

A braisa (Daf Yomi: Gittin 20a) was taught: A scribe was supposed to write the Name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah, and instead intended to write the name Yehudah. [The name Yehudah is similar to the letters in the Name of Hashem, except that the word Yehudah has a letter “dalet” between the “vav” and the “hey.”] He forgot to insert the “dalet” and ended up writing the Name of Hashem but without the required intention necessary to write the Holy Name. Rabbi Yehudah posits that the scribe can pass his quill over the Name of Hashem and have the proper intention of writing the Name. The Chachamim disagree, claiming that this is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem (and the Sefer Torah is subsequently invalid).

The Rishonim ask: According to Rav Chisda, who holds that the Chachamim maintain that the Sefer Torah is disqualified, why does he use the term that it is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem? This would indicate that the writing is good, but it is not written in the most preferable method! Why didn’t he say that the new writing does not accomplish anything?

The Rashba answers that they actually hold that the tracing over of the word is not regarded as an act of writing at all and the Sefer Torah is disqualified. They only used that term to discuss Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion.

The Pnei Yehoshua suggests a novel approach to explain the Chachamim’s terminology: Although the Chachamim maintain that the Sefer Torah is disqualified, they nevertheless hold that the Name of Hashem retains its sanctity and is forbidden to be erased. He proves that the Name of Hashem, although it wasn’t written with the correct intention, cannot be erased. This is why the Chachamim say that it is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem.

The Tashbatz, however, proves from our sugya that it is permitted to erase the Name of Hashem when it is written without the correct intention.

The Gemora in Yoma (38a) states that Ben Kamtzar had a unique talent that he was able to write four letters with one hand at the same time and he did not teach this talent to anyone else. The Gemora says that this was considered a shame and due to this, he was referred to as an evil person. What were the Chachamim concerned about? Rashi comments that this was referring to the Name of Hashem which has four letters.

The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that there is an advantage for the Name of Hashem to be written at one time, so that His Name should not be missing for a moment.

The Minchas Chinuch has a novel approach and says that if one writes the first two letters of the Name of Hashem which is the “yud” and the “hey,” that itself is one of the Name’s of Hashem, and by subsequently writing the third letter, the “vav,” it constitutes erasing Hashem’s Name. Ben Kamtzar was able to avoid with his special skill.

The Emek Brocha asks that if the Name of Hashem is written without proper intent, there is no prohibition to erase it, so why should there be a prohibition here when the scribe did not intend to write the ‘two letter’ Name of Hashem, but rather His ‘four letter’ Name?

According to the Pnei Yehoshua, this is not a question, for this, in fact, a prohibition to erase the Name of Hashem, even when it is written without the proper intent!

Read more!

Shailah from the Minchas Chinuch

It was stated (Daf Yomi: Gittin 19a): If a man writes over red paint writing with black ink on Shabbos, Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish both agree that he is liable on two counts, one for writing (the two new black letters) and one for erasing. [One is only liable on Shabbos if he erases with the intention of writing two letters in its place. Here, in order to write the two new black letters, he must erase the red letters first.]

If he writes over black ink with black ink or red pigment with red pigment, he is not punishable. [This is because nothing has been accomplished with the new writing.]

If he goes over black ink with red pigment, some say he is punishable and some say he is not punishable. Some say he is punishable because he is erasing the previous writing. [He is not liable for writing because the original black writing was much clearer than the red one.] Some say he is not punishable because he is only ruining the previous writing.

Rish Lakish inquired of Rabbi Yochanan: If witnesses are unable to sign their names on a get, is it permissible to write their names for them in red pigment and let them go over it with black ink? Is the upper writing regarded as writing or not?

He replied: It is not regarded as writing.

Rish Lakish challenged him: But, didn’t our teacher teach us that in respect of Shabbos, the upper writing is regarded as writing?

He replied: Because we have a certain opinion, shall we practice stringently based upon it? [If the Beis HaMikdosh would be in existence, I wouldn’t tell that person that he is liable to bring a korban chatas for violating the Shabbos, for perhaps it is not a transgression and he will be bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Courtyard!]

Tosfos notes: It is evident from here that tracing over letters with the same color ink is not regarded as writing with respect to Shabbos or with respect to gittin. Accordingly, Tosfos asks from a Gemora below (20a) which states: If a get was initially not written lishmah, it can be rectified if the scribe traces over the letters lishmah! (The Gemora there discusses if this is the halacha according to all opinions or not.) Why should it be valid if he is using the same color ink again?

Tosfos answers that since the scribe is adding an important element to the writing, namely the lishmah of the get, it therefore constitutes an act of writing for the get. However, in our case, the second writing accomplished nothing, and therefore, it is not regarded as an act of writing.

The Minchas Chinuch (§ 32) poses the following question: If one, on Shabbos, would trace over the letters of a get that had previously not been written lishmah, what is the halacha? If we would say that the tracing lishmah constitutes an act of writing and the get will be valid, it will emerge that he intentionally violated the Shabbos and he will be regarded as a mummar, who is disqualified from writing a get! And if we rule that he, in fact, is a mummar and the get is invalid, it will emerge that his tracing did not accomplish anything and he did not violate the Shabbos, which in turn, will validate the get! The logic goes complete circle and we will never be able to execute him for transgressing the Shabbos, for his writing did not accomplish anything and therefore it did not constitute an act of writing, and we will not be able to validate the get, for if we would do so, it would emerge that he was a mummar at that time and the get is invalid!?

Read more!

The Murderer's Testimony

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Sotah 47b) states that an eglah arufah is only brought in a matter of uncertainty; however, if the murderer was discovered, we do not bring an eglah arufah.

The Minchas Chinuch (§ 530) writes that if a person comes and says, “I killed him,” if he said that he did it inadvertently, he would be believed and we would not bring an eglah arufah. However, if he said that he killed him intentionally, he is not believed, because there is a principle that a person is not believed to render himself into a wicked person. In that case, we would bring an eglah arufah.

Rav Shach in Avi Ezri disagrees because the reason why a person is not believed when his testimony will render him an evil person is because based upon his testimony, he is a rasha, and a rasha cannot offer testimony. However, with respect to eglah arufah, one who is disqualified from testifying is allowed to testify that he can identify the murderer. Even a thief is allowed to offer such testimony. Accordingly, a person should be able to say and be believed that he himself killed him!

Rav Shach explains that the reason a rasha is believed regarding an eglah arufah is because his testimony is not affecting the murderer whatsoever. He is merely stating that he can identify the murderer. Every other place where one witness or a woman is believed, and nevertheless, we do not believe a thief, that is only because he is accomplishing something. Through his testimony (that a woman’s husband died), we will be permitting a woman to get married, and if he is a rasha, he is not believed, for we suspect that he is lying. By eglah arufah, where there is nothing being accomplished (with respect to the murderer), there is no reason for the rasha to lie and he can therefore be believed.

Read more!

Women in Battle

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Sotah 44b) had stated: When do these words (the exemptions mentioned in the Mishna) apply? It is only with respect to a voluntary war; however, with respect to wars of mitzvah, everyone is required to go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her chupah.

Rabbi Yehudah says: These words were only said with respect to wars of mitzvah; however, with respect to an obligatory war, everyone is required to go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her chupah.

The commentators ask: What does the Mishna mean whit it says, “even a bride from her chupah”? Women are not obligated to go to war! The Chinuch (§ 403) writes with respect of the mitzvah of erasing Amalek’s name that it is only applicable to men, but not to women, for it is the practice of men to wage war against their enemies, not women. The Radvaz on the Rambam also rules like that, and he bases it upon the verse: The complete glory of the princess is within. Accordingly, he asks from our Mishna, which would seem to indicate that they do go out for war! They also ask from the Gemora in Nazir (59a) which states: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: How do we know that a woman shall not go out wearing weapons of war? It is because it’s written: A man’s attire shall not be on a woman.

The Radvaz answers: The Mishna simply means that when the bridegroom goes to fight, the bride will leave the chupah, but not to go to war.

Alternatively, he answers that she does go to war, but not to fight. They provide water and food for their husbands. The Reshash adds that they go to the battlefield to cook and to bake for the soldiers. (The Tzitz Eliezer understands that the Radvaz and the Reshash are arguing if the women supply food only to their husbands or to all men.)

The Ben Yehoyadah writes that she goes out to war to guard the weapons.

In the sefer Hon Ashir, he writes that even if a woman is confident that she can stand up to the enemy and she will not back down; we do not allow her to fight.

The Minchas Chinuch writes that according to our Gemora, a woman would be obligated to fight in all wars of mitzvah and to wage war against Amalek. Evidently, this mitzvah overrides the prohibition of wearing weapons of war.

Read more!

Reasons for the Exemption

The Mishna states: One, who builds a house, betroths a woman or plants a vineyard is exempt from going to battle.

There are various reasons to explain these exemptions: The Rashbam states: These people are similar to the ones who are faint of heart. They are concerned that they will not merit inaugurating their house, marrying their wife or redeeming their vineyard. They are scared that they will die during battle and are therefore exempt from going to war.

The Ibn Ezra explains: These people are preoccupied with their desire to inaugurate their house, marrying their wife or redeeming their vineyard, and will therefore not pay attention completely to the war. This will cause them to retreat during the heat of the battle and will constitute a danger to the remainder of the army.

The Mishna enumerates all the various people that may return from the battle. The Minchas Chinuch (§ 526) writes that it is not clear from the Gemora or the Rambam if these people have the option of remaining at the battlefield or not. He states that it is logical to assume that the faint of heart are required to go home, for otherwise, he will cause the hearts of the others to melt. He adds that according to Rashi, who writes that these people will definitely die during the war if they do not heed the words of the Kohen, they would not have the option of staying.

Seemingly, according to the reasons mentioned above, they would not be allowed to remain at the battlefield, for according to the Rashbam, they are similar to the faint of heart, and they are required to go home. And according to the Ibn Ezra, they would also be required to return home, for otherwise, they would constitute a danger to the other soldiers.

Read more!

Blessing after Coffee

The Tosfos Yom Hakippurim (Yoma 79b) wonders as to the necessity of reciting a blessing after one drinks coffee. Perhaps it should not require a blessing at all since a person does not drink a revi’is at once; rather, he drinks a little at a time, and it emerges that he does not drink a revi’is within the amount of time it takes to eat a peras (half a loaf of bread). Or, perhaps one might counter and say that this principle should only apply to other liquids, where one has the ability to drink it at once, but he chooses not to. However, coffee, which one cannot drink at one time, and on the contrary, it is natural to take short sips with long intervals in between, perhaps the entire drinking will combine to the required amount for the blessing to be recited.

He resolves this question from our Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 36b) which states that if one eats the Babylonian kutach (a dip that has a minimal amount of chametz in it) in a “dip-like” fashion, he will not be liable for eating chametz on Pesach. This is because he did not eat it a k’zayis within the amount of time it takes to eat a peras. Now, it is not normal to eat a dip at once, and nevertheless, one is not liable for eating the dip in its normal fashion. This would prove that one should not recite a blessing after drinking a cup of coffee.

The Minchas Chinuch rejects the proof: One would not be liable because of the kutach. It is because of the chametz that is mixed into it. Chametz by itself is normal to eat a k’zayis within the amount of time it takes to eat a peras. Therefore, he is not liable on the dip when he eats it in a normal manner. However, with respect to coffee, it is usual to drink the coffee slowly, and therefore, one would be obligated to recite a blessing afterwards.

Read more!

Pauper Acting Rich

The braisa (Daf Yomi: Nazir 25b - 26a) states: Other people who are obligated to bring bird offerings by the Torah (because they cannot afford to buy animal offerings) who already designated the money to buy the birds (and then became rich), if they now want to bring a chatas or olah offering instead, they may do so.

The Mefaresh understands this Gemora to be referring to a rich woman who has given birth, where her chatas is a bird.

It is noteworthy that after the Torah discusses the korban that a rich woman who has given birth brings, it says [Vayikra 12:7]: This is the law of a woman who gives birth to a male or to a female. The question is asked: Immediately following this verse, the Torah teaches us the korbanos that a poor woman who has given birth brings. Why would the Torah say regarding the rich woman’s korbanos that “this is law of a woman who gives birth”? It would seem from the verse that only the rich woman’s korbanos are the law, and not the korbanos from the poor woman.

The Kli Chemdah (Parshas Tazria) cites a Gemora in Menochos (110a): It is written: This is the law of an olah. The Gemora expounds: Anyone that studies the laws of an olah is considered as if he brought a korban olah. What would be if a poor person would recite the portion dealing with the rich person’s korbanos? Would it be regarded as if he brought the korban? The answer may be gleaned from the fact that the Torah concluded the portion dealing with the rich woman’s korbanos with the following verse: This is the law of a woman who gives birth. The Torah is informing us that the recital of this portion is sufficient for anyone, even for a poor woman.

[The Gemora states that Hashem told Avraham Avinu that whenever Klal Yisroel will read the Torah portions pertaining to the korbanos, it will be regarded as if they brought korbanos and their sins will be forgiven.

The commentators discuss if this concept applies by other mitzvos as well. Perhaps it can be said that the studying of any mitzvah that cannot be performed nowadays will be regarded as if one fulfilled the mitzvah.

The Chafetz Chaim cites the Gemora in Bava Metzia (114b) that the Amoraim were fluent in Seder Kodoshim in the same manner as Seder Moed, Nashim and Nezikin. This is because Kodoshim was relevant to them since the learning about the korbanos was regarded as if they actually brought a korban. Implicit in his words that for some reason this was only true regarding Seder Kodoshim and not to Seder Zeroim or Taharos which also has many halachos that do not apply outside of Eretz Yisroel and after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Taz in his sefer Divrei Dovid maintains that the concept applies to all mitzvos and one who studies the laws of Zeraim, it will be regarded as if he gave terumos and ma’asros to the kohanim and levi’im and it will be considered as if he gave all the presents to the poor people. This is the explanation in Yaakov’s words to Esav "Im Lavan garti," which Chazal understand to mean that Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos in Lavan’s house. There were many mitzvos that he was not able to fulfill at that time; it is evident that the studying of these mitzvos are regarded as if he fulfilled them all.

The Ben Ish Cahi explains the verse in Nitzavim: "Ki Korov eilecha hadavar meod b’ficha u’vilvov’cha la’asoso." It is possible to fulfill all the mitzvos with your mouth (by studying them) even those mitzvos that you cannot actually perform.]

We can add that the Mishna in Negaim compliments this explanation. For the Mishna says that if a poor person who is a metzora brings the korban that a rich person is supposed to bring, he fulfills his obligation. The Chinuch (123) states by a korban olah v’yoreid - (certain sins which require a korban chatos, he either brings an animal, bird or flour offering depending on his status - this is called a fluctuating korban) if a poor person brings the korban of a rich person, he does not fulfill his obligation. The Chinuch explains the reason: the Torah had compassion on the poor person, it is not proper for him to compel himself to bring a korban which he cannot afford. How can the Chinuch hold against the Mishna, which explicitly states that he does fulfill his obligation?

The Chasam Sofer answers based on the following Gemora in Shabbos: Hashem punishes each person according to what he can afford. A rich person who sins will lose his cow. A poor person, on the other hand, will lose his chicken or some eggs. Therefore, there is a distinction between the korban of a metzora or a woman who gave birth and the korban olah v’yoreid. A metzora is not required to bring a korban because he sinned, it is to purify him and allow him to eat kodoshim. If a poor metzora decides to bring the rich man’s korban, he will have discharged his obligation. Conversely, a sinner who does that will not have discharged his obligation, for here the Torah prescribed for him the korban which will give him atonement according to his status. The korban is in place of the punishment. It is not decided by the pauper what his punishment should be, and therefore when he brings the korban of a rich person, he does not fulfill his obligation.

The Sfas Emes (here and quoted in Moadim U’zmanim as a story which occurred by a Kenesiya Gedola) answers that there is a basic distinction. A metzora disregarding if he is rich or poor, is required to bring a chatas and an olah. The rich man brings animals and the pauper brings birds. If a poor person brings the korban of a rich person, he fulfills his obligation, for he brought the prescribed amount. A korban olah v’yoreid is different. A rich person brings an animal for a korban chatas and a poor person brings two birds, one for a chatas and one for an olah. If a poor person will force himself to bring the korban of a rich person, he will not fulfill his obligation because he cheated the Altar out of one korban - namely the olah.

There are two questions on this explanation (look in Shemuas Chaim and in Mitzvas Hamelech from Harav Ezriel Cziment). Firstly, the Chinuch says a different reason for his not fulfilling his obligation. He says because the Torah doesn’t want a poor person to overburden himself. He does not say the reason of the Sfas Emes that he missed a korban? Secondly, one must ask, why is it that a poor person is required to bring two korbanos and a rich person only brings one? The Ibn Ezra explains the reason for this: A chatas bird is completely eaten and an olah bird is completely burned on the Altar. These two birds together replace a regular korban which entails a human consumption and the Altar’s consumption. They are actually one korban. Therefore, one can say that a poor person is not missing a korban by bringing one animal instead of two birds?

It would seem, however, that this question can be answered. Even according to the Ibn Ezra, the two birds are not one korban. They are two korbanos complimenting one another. The rationale behind bringing the two korbanos could be because the Torah wants human consumption and the Altar’s consumption; nevertheless, it is still two korbanos and a poor person is missing one korban when he brings the korban of a rich person.

Read more!

Nezirus Shimshon

It is evident from our Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 14a) that one cannot nullify a nezirus Shimshon. If so, our version of hataras nedarim (the nullification of our vows) that we recite on Erev Rosh Hashanah is very problematic. We state explicitly that we are petitioning the Beis Din to annul all of our nedarim and nezirus, and even a nezirus Shimshon! How can it be nullified?

The Pischei Teshuvah (Y.D. 139:6), based on this question writes that our version is an erroneous one.

However, the Nitzotzei Ohr cites a Minchas Chinuch (368), who says in the name of the Leket Hakemach that nezirus Shimshon cannot be nullified only if the nezirus had begun already; however, if it did not start yet (i.e. he said, “I will be a nazir Shimshon in twenty days”), it may be annulled. On Erev Rosh Hashanah, we are petitioning the Beis Din to annul any future vows of nezirus that we may utter.

Read more!

Is the Fetus a "Swallowed Item"?

The following halacha is derived from our Gemora (Nedarim 75b): If a person swallows a tahor ring and subsequently enters a room containing a corpse, the ring does not contract tumah. This is based on a Gemora in Chulin (71b), which states that a “swallowed item” does not contract tumah.

The Minchas Chinuch (263:3) asks the following question: How can Rabbi Akiva in Chulin (72a) rule that a fetus inside of its mother’s womb can Biblically contract tumah? Shouldn’t the fetus be regarded as a “swallowed item,” and therefore, be shielded by the mother’s body from becoming tamei?

He answers that the fetus is considered like a thigh of its mother and therefore is rendered tamei just like any other one of the mother’s limbs.

The Magen Avraham (O”C 343:2) cites the Rokeach as saying the following: Concerning a pregnant wife of a Kohen, she is permitted to enter into a room that contains a corpse (even though the baby might be a male and cannot become tamei). The rationale is based upon a “double doubt.” Perhaps she will miscarry, and even if she will not, perhaps the child will be a female, not a male!

The Magen Avraham asks: Why is this logic necessary? It should be permitted because the fetus can be regarded as a “swallowed item,” and hence, cannot become tamei?

Reb Elchonon Wasserman in Koveitz Shiurim (2:41) answers: A Kohen is forbidden from entering into a room that contains tumah (regardless of becoming tamei). A “swallowed item,” although it does not become tamei, it is nevertheless, considered as if it is inside the room. Therefore, the principle of a “swallowed item” will not permit her to enter the room.

According to the Minchas Chinuch, we can answer that the fetus is not regarded as a “swallowed item,” and therefore will not be a reason to permit her to enter.

Read more!

Women and Shemitah

The Chinuch states that there is a positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemitah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From plowing and harvesting you shall desist.

The Minchas Chinuch (112) asks that if so, women should be exempt from this mitzvah, and they should be permitted to plow on shemitah because it is a positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time?

He answers that women are obligated in this mitzvah because that rule is applicable only regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like shemitah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz). This can be better understood based upon our Gemora which says that the shemitah prohibition is on account of the ground.

Proof to this distinction is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a). The Gemora rules, based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a verse necessary; circumcision is a positive mitzvah which is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah which is not related to the person themselves; this principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Read more!

Beat him Until he Dies

The Gemora (Kesuvos 86a) cites a braisa: When does one receive forty lashes for violating a Biblical law? That is only in regard to a negative commandment; however, with respect to a positive commandment, for example – if we tell someone, “Make a sukkah” and he refuses, or we tell him, “Make a lulav,” and he refuses, we beat him until his soul departs.

The question is asked: Why is there permission to kill one who is not interested in fulfilling a positive commandment; the punishment for not fulfilling a positive commandment is not death?

Reb Tuvia Lisitzin, in his sefer Kerem Tuvia answers that permission is granted to beat him until his death because by not fulfilling a positive commandment (and especially, when people are attempting to persuade him, and he, nevertheless, refuses), this is tantamount to desecrating the name of Hashem.

This can also explain why Pinchas was allowed to kill the Midyanis woman. He was able to kill Zimri because the halacha is that one who cohabits with an idolater, the zealots are permitted to kill him. However, why was he allowed to kill the Midyanis woman; she does not have any prohibition of cohabiting with a Jew? The answer is: It was due to her that a tremendous desecration of Hashem’s name occurred; for this, she was deserving to die.

The Chasam Sofer writes that we are not permitted to strike him with a blow that will kill him; permission is granted to hit him time after time until he eventually agrees to fulfill the mitzvah. When do we stop beating him? When he dies from the beatings.

The Chinuch writes that one who does not repay a debt has violated a negative commandment in the Torah. The Minchas Chinuch asks: If so, why does our Gemora inquire if a person who refuses to repay a debt should be compelled to do so; of course, we should force him, just like any other negative commandment?

Read more!