|
|
|
|
Have a question? Send it in! Questions are answered by Rabbi Bartfeld.
|
|
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
|
|
|
|
|
#2058 A Value Judgment
|
|
|
Q. (Re- question 2057 above). On a second but connected question. Can Shimon have a claim that Reuven made his property go down in value. Let's say Shimon had an offer on his house for $500k but after Reuven got permission to build that buyer backed out and will now offer on $400k. Is that a valid claim? If not for actual money compensation but can Shimon insist on Reuven doing somethings such as planting trees or other stuff that will minimize the loss (and quality of life change) to Shimon? Some of these changes won't cost Reuven anything while others will. Is there a difference between in if it costs Reuven money or not? The ones that do cost money will be less then the loss of value that Shimon is having on his property. Thank you
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlita opinion is that the mentioned loss of the property value does not even qualify as a "gromo" or indirect causative damage, that in Halacha cannot be collected anyway. This is due to the fact that the value of real estate is determined by many different unrelated and ever-changing factors.
Kehilos Ya’akov (Baba Basra 5) explains that chezek reiah or damage done by gawking or staring into someones property involves three different issues; damage done to the individual, to his property and the prohibition of inflicting pain or embarrassment. (See Shulchan Aruch C. M. 154). Beis Din should indeed establish if and how it applies and what is the right course to follow.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 2:45 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2057 Have Your Day D-in Court?
|
|
|
Q. Is one allowed to appeal a decision by the planning board or does he have to go to Beis Din first?
You have two parties. Reuven and Shimon. Reuven applied to be able to build a building next door to Shimons house. While this building is not residential, and not typical for this area, it is allowed according to Township code however it does need to be approved in a case by case basis. The planning board approved the building plus a second type of building as well. While the Township code allows
the first type of building, the second type its not so clear if it is allowed (some lawyers say it's not allowed), however the Township planning board approved it anyway.
In this state, there is a method for appealing the Township planning boards decision. This appeal goes to the county level where a judge reviews whether it was supposed to be approved or not.
So does this need to go to Beis Din before being appealed?
A few reasons why not
1) By Reuven applying for permission to change the use of the property to allow this building, he is bringing it into the non Jewish system already, so an appeal is just continuing what Reuven started
2) Beis Din doesn't have any jurisdiction over zoning decisions, so there is no din of arkoyos.
3) The appeal is not against the applicant (Reuven) rather it is against the Planning Board, so it's not two yidden against each other rather one yid against the Township. (and this is indeed how the appeal is structured).
Or is it even with the above it is still something that one needs to get Beis Dins permission first before going into the non Jewish system.
A. On question 1068 in regard to having to apply to a Beis Din or requesting a Posek to give permission to go to a Gentile court to challenge a landlord’s decision to keep a rent deposit wrongfully, we wrote;
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit’a opinion is that you do not need permission from a Beis Din to lodge a complain for redress at the Landlord and Tenant Board or its equivalent. The reason is that enforcing established laws by applying to the corresponding authorities to make their decision if they apply and enforce them, is not considered going to court.
The Rov added that the above applies even when that decision is rendered by a government appointed judge to deal with these cases.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 2:38 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2056 A Word on Honor
|
|
|
Q. Hello Rav,
I started learning at the Toronto Kollel in the mornings. As I'm learning, several young rabbis also walk by and come into the room to learn. I'm wondering if I should be standing up fully, sit up a little bit, or not at all as they walk into my 4 amot. I assume any kollel rabbi is considered a talmud chacham and the obligation to stand up would be in effect in theory. If so, would this apply just one time per morning, or each time they pass by?
Thanks so much.
A. On question 1951 we wrote: "Rema (Y.D. 244: 16) rules that a talmid should not stand up before his rebbe more than twice a day. This reflects the teaching of Talmud (Kidushin 33b), that the honor given to a human should not surpass the one given to Hashem, whom we honor every morning and night, (when reciting the shema - Taz). However, the Rema adds, that if others are present, since they may not be aware that one has already stood twice before his master, one should stand again."
On question 1934 we wrote; "Teshuvos Radvaz (8:167) maintains that even when the elderly forgoes his honor, one should still respect him by rising slightly. Horav Y.S Elyashiv zt"l, however, rules that this is unnecessary. (Mevakshei Torah, v. 4, p. 249).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar."
On question 1159 in regards to standing for a Talmid Chacham or an elder who is unaware of the honor given to him, (he is facing another direction), if it is better to make him aware, we wrote: "Horav Shlomo Millers Shlit'a opinion is that in general there is no need to make the recipient of the honor aware that you are standing for him or honoring him, unless he needs to benefit emotionally from that knowledge;( e.g. to rise his depressed spirit).
In principle, the Rov maintains one should rise slightly, as mentioned above, even when the elder is not aware of it"
In our case the Rov maintains that even the elderly Talmidei Chachamim usually forgive their honor, and no standing is customary.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 1:05 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2055 An Answer to an Answer
|
|
|
Q. Re- question 2000 (on answering Yehei Shmei correctly during kaddish). The Gemara says whomever answers Y'hei Sh'mei etc. with all his Koach, they tear up etc. The Gemara uses the words "Kol Ho'ohneh". Does this mean that this Eitzah does not work for the Chazan when he says Y'hei Sh'mei etc. as part of his recitation?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the sayings of the sages on the greatness and importance of answering Yehei Shmei Rabba correctly apply both to the listeners answering as to the one reciting the kaddish.
The Rov further explained that since the kaddish reciter is the one causing and promoting the answer of the many listening, he shares with them the great mitzva done and is included with them in their answer.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 12:56 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2054 Traditions of Marriage
|
|
|
Q. When a couple marries, they must separate from each other as if she were a menstruate after their first experienced marital relations. Is this true only if she was a virgin or regardless of her physical status?
How about in the case of a virgin bride who is elderly and past menopause?
A. Shulchan Aruch (E. H. 193: 1) based on Talmud (Nida 65b) rules that the one that weds a virgin performs the mitzva of having relations with her and then separates. Since we are concerned that the blood experienced may be a nida or menstrual discharge.
The above applies as it is mentioned, only in the case of a virgin.
If the virgin bride is elderly and past menopause, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the law of separation still applies. The Rov explained that if it applies to a ketana (see Shulchan Aruch ibid.), it definitely applies to our case.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 12:47 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2053 An Accident not Waiting to Happen
|
|
|
Q. Re - question 10 that; Harav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a is of the opinion that if someone is indeed in a car that spins out on the highway and miraculously does not get hit by another car, he does not recite this Brocho, however if he did hit the guardrail and there was damage done to the vehicle he should bless Hagomel.
This is interesting because Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein of Eretz Yisroel recently ruled that someone who was falsely searched by police in an intensive manner that lasted long enough for him to miss his flight; a flight that subsequently crashed with no survivors, is obligated to recite HaGomel.
At the same time, it is said in the name of the Satmar Rav, that one does not need to recite HaGomel for such an incident, for if one did, he would need to recite it every week to thank HaShem that he was not in his trousers when his wife ironed them. What is Rav Miller's opinion in the case of Rav Zilberstein?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a disagrees with Horav Zilberstein's Shli'a ruling and maintains (as in question 10) that since he did not board the ill-fated plane, he is exempt of reciting hagomel.
However, the Rov recommends that other Tehilim such as Hodu Lashem (Psalms 107) should be recited. (see question 370). Also a kiddush or similar, accompanied by corresponding words of Torah may be offered as a seudas hodoa, a meal of thanksgiving to Hashem.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/18/2019 12:42 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2052 Fresh Start or Full Stop?
|
|
|
Q. If the complete and full (shleimos) challos used for lechem mishneh on Shabbos, are stale and hard, can I just eat a bit from one of them to comply with the hamotzi, and then eat the rest of the needed kezais from fresh but incomplete bread?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that on the onset, one should eat a full kezais from one of the shleimos breads even if they are stale. However, in need the smallest shiur for a kezais would be accepted, while the rest is eaten from the fresh bread. When reciting hamotzi, the fresh bread should be held together with the two complete challos.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/17/2019 4:09 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2051 The Chosen One
|
|
|
Q. Re- above question. I once heard in a shiur, that since the Gemorah teaches when a sickness is sent to a person, an oath is made with that sickness so it will not leave the person, only at an appointed time and by an appointed doctor. Therefore Halacha dictates, that if he was chosen and called as a doctor, he can't refuse and ask the patient to call 911 or any other medic. Is that true?
A. Indeed the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 58a) teaches that the sickness is sworn to depart only by the appointed physician, time and medicine. Yerushalmi (Nedorim 4: 2) mentions that "not from all (doctors) does a person merit to be cured."
Therefore, Shvus Yaakov (Y.D. 1: 86) rules in regards to a physician in avelus that he may attend the sick in a case of sakana, even if there are others that can replace him, due to the oath mentioned above, since he may be the only one appointed to cure that illness. (See Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 380: 1, and Sdei Chemed - M. Avelus 44).
Boruch Sheomar (Tefilah p.125) rules that due to the above teachings, a physician that was asked to attend to a particular patient, cannot refuse.
However, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that being called, does not establish at all that he is the chosen physician, and if there are others that can treat him faster or better, or if he is an avel etc.,let the others available medics cure, as they may be the appointed ones.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/13/2019 12:40 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2050 Doctors Orders?
|
|
|
Q. Does Halacha permit a doctor called by one of his patients in the middle of the night for an emergency, to respond to the patient that he should call Hatzalah or 911?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that he may, if it will take him longer to get ready and reach the needed location than it would take Hatzoloh or an ambulance. Very likely he may also not be as well prepared, have with him the necessary medical equipment or the added medical help that could save the life of the patient.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/13/2019 12:38 AM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2049 The Book on Scraps
|
|
|
Q. If one has pas palter (baked by a Gentile) that will spoil if left until motzoi Yom Kippur (even if frozen), and one does not eat it during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, can one give it to one that does eat pas pelter in those days?
Likewise, if one has chicken leftover from Shabbos Chazon and it will spoil if left for after the Nine Days. can he give it to someone who eats chicken meat on the Nine Days?
A. On question 2022 in regard to permitting someone who is careful to eat only products that contain Chalav Yisrael, to serve to his guest that eat non Chalav-Yisrael pastries and chocolates that have proper Kasher supervision but are not Chalav Yisrael, we wrote; Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that as long as the guest are aware that the food offered to them is not Cholov Yisroel and they usually consume it, there is no Lifnei Iver or Mesayea prohibition involved.
The Rov maintains, that the same will apply to pas pelter for someone who always eats it, or chicken meat for someone who is permitted to consume it during the Nine Days because of health reasons.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 2:00 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2048 Looks Could Kill
|
|
|
Q. Does the issur of looking at the face of a rasha (evil person) include looking at the picture, or only at the person?
A. Talmud (Megila 28a) teaches that Rav Yochanan said it is prohibited to look into the face of an evil person.
Halichos Chaim (2: 362 p. 171) quotes Horav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit'a as answering that there is no prohibition in looking at the picture of a rasha. However, Lehoros Nossan (10: 20) maintains that one should abstain from doing so.
Hegyonei Haparsha (Toldos p. 261) explains that it would depend on the different reasons for this prohibition.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that the prohibition does not apply to a picture.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:44 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2047 Counting On Your Chickens
|
|
|
Q. I travel on business often to China, where I visit some companies in different far off cities, that don't have any kind of Jewish communities. I noticed that the life chickens in the market place look different than the ones we are accustomed to see in our countries, and since there is no local shechita, there certainly is no tradition on this birds to be kosher. Can I eat the eggs sold in the supermarkets?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that first you should verify how different this chickens are from the common others, by taking a few pictures and consulting with a reliable Posek familiar with this type of shailes.
You should also find out if this kind of birds is not being consumed in other Asian provinces, where there is a Jewish community that keeps kosher, therefore creating an established "masores" or tradition that would permit it's consumption.
If indeed it is declared to be different, and there is no permitting "masores" for this birds to be found, one should not consume the eggs as the are a "dovor hayotze min hatameh" or a food emanating from a non-kosher source and therefore prohibited. In doubt, one should also abstain.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:35 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2046 Wine And Din
|
|
|
Q. What is Horav Miller's opinion in regards to pasteurized wine. Is it permitted as yain mebushal (cooked wine)?
A. Poskim disagree as to what constitutes yain mevushal. Some maintain that cooked wine was only permitted, because in former times it was uncommon to cook wine (milsa d’lo shechi’ach). However in our days, pasteurization is the norm. Others add that to become mevushal the wine actually has to boil and thus the volume diminished, which is not the case on pasteurized wine cooked under pressure. Moreover, to be considered mevushal, the cooking should cause a noticeable change in the taste, color or aroma of the wine. The process commonly employed today, known as flash pasteurization, is performed in a manner that very quickly heats and then cools the wine, and even connoisseurs debate whether it causes any appreciable effect on the taste of the wine. (Minchas Shlomo 1: 25 quoting Horav Eliashiv zt'l, Ohr Letzion 2; 20; 18, Mincha Yitzchok 7: 61, and others.
However, Igrois Moshe (Y.D. 1: 50), Yabia Omer (Y.D. 8: 15) and others are lenient and the prevalent minhag for many is that pasteurized wine qualifies as mevushal. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l required pasteurization to be at a temperature exceeding 175˚ F - 80 ˚C, while the Tzelemer Rov zt'l insisted on a minimum of 190˚ F - 88 ˚C.
The OU permits wines that undergo flash pasteurization as mevushal or mifustar. STAR-K accepts grape juice pasteurized at least at 165˚ F - 74 ˚C as mevushal.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that a temperature of 180 ˚ F - 82 ˚C is required.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/11/2019 1:19 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2045 An Early Mazal Tov?
|
|
|
Q. If one hast to undergo an important medical procedure, it is generally recommended to do it during the month of Adar, since those are days of good mazal. Does that include the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon? Should one have it postponed until later or the second Adar?
A. In question 472 in regard to postponing a court case to the second Adar we wrote: "The Mishna (Meggilah 6b) teaches that besides the reading of the Meggilah and the gifts for the poor, there is no difference between the first and second Adar. Chasam Sofer (O.H. 167) also implies, that besides the exceptions he cites, both months are equal. Nitey Gavriel (Purim 11: 2) in relation to the increase of Simcha and joy inherent in Adar, quotes Rav Tzadok Hacohen zt”l (Likutey Mamorim 16) and Sfas Emes that maintain that the simcha of Adar begins with the first month.
Not all Poskim agree. Sheilas Yaavetz (2: 88) and Teshuvo Meahavo (2: 301) quoting Rashi (Taanis 29a) mention that it applies only to the Adar close to Nisan.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that the court case does not have to be delayed to the second month of Adar."
On question 990 we added: "Derech Sicha, (Miketz p. 188,) Nitey Gavriel, (Purim – Teshuvos 2) et. al., opine that it begins from the first Adar. Nitey Gavriel (ibid. 464) quoting the Munkatcher Rebbe, adds even from Tu Bishvat."
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that a delay would depend on the medical advice received. The Rov maintains that the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar-First, according to some opinions is also preferred and brings good mazal.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 3:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2044 Helping the Troubled Waters
|
|
|
Q. In places like Las Vegas and some counties in California where literally the treated water goes from the toilet to the tap, can you wash netilat yadaim with such water. Even if not contaminated, why should it not be disqualified as water that was used for work (cleaning, washing and drinking from it etc.)?
A. Poskim maintain that if the water was treated and recycled directly into the tap, it would be disqualified for netilas yodaim (Lehoros Nossan 10: 23, Kovetz M'beis Levy 5: 6). However, it is common that the water is reclaimed into a lake, from where it will be extracted for house use.
The above Poskim opine, that since it ends in contact with the ground and is further filtered by it, and then extracted from the underground of the lake, it is considered having gone through a "hamshacha" process, as water for a mikva is transformed by having it run over the ground. This constitutes "ponim chadoshos" or new fresh water and is permitted for netilas yodaim (See Piskei Teshuvos 160: 16: n. 58).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:37 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2043 The Works of Water Works
|
|
|
Q. In some countries the city water is not connected directly to the taps, but is stored first in a water tank usually at the roof of the house. To avoid spilling the water once the tank is full, the water pushes up a floater that turn off the valve for incoming water, (similar to a common toilet). Why is that water not considered as having done work, since it turned off the valve and therefore should not be fit for netilat yadaim?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a explained that the water only caused that no more of it should enter the tank; avoiding doing work is not work. Dovev Meishorim (4: Likutei Teshuvos: 20) adds to the above reason the following two.
1) Only the very last top layer of incoming water that pressed directly on the floater performed work. The other layers of water below are only creating a gromo or an indirect work for achieving the valve closing, and that will not disqualify those waters. Then, the top layer will become annulled on the majority of waters bellow via bitul berov, and all the water will become permitted.
2) The work was done by water that was attached via the still open valve, to the water source. As mentioned above and in Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 160: 5) a mikva or a spring are not disqualified by this kind of water. See also Chashukei Chemed (Chulin 66a) that adds another three reasons.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:36 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2042 You Call That Work?
|
|
|
Q. (See question 2041 above on water that was used to perform work). Why is water that "worked" by turning a water motor, different from any common water whose volume was measured by a water meter. After all the water "worked" by making the meter register the volume that went by, and therefore no measured water anywhere should be kasher even for netilat yadaim?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that since actually one is not interested in the water meter working as he is being charged for the water used, that unwanted performance is not considered work.
(Besides, one can hardly say that the water will be discarded because of this work).
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/8/2019 1:32 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2041 Kosher Water Power
|
|
|
Q. I own a water powered motor that I use to open and close the suka roof on Shabbath and Yom Tov. The water used is not wasted, it ends in a pool that we use as a mikva for men, (it is connected to a rainwater bor). Since the water performed work, (moved the motor), is that mikva kasher?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 160: 2) rules that water that was used for performing work (melacha) is disqualified for netilas yodaim, (washing hands for eating bread). The reason that most Poskim quote, is that once the water was used for any kind of work, it is usually discarded and considered unwanted, and therefore unfit for the mitzva. (Mishna Berura ibid. 6).
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that indeed, this water would be disqualified for netilas yodaim use.
However, Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 5) maintains that this type of water does not disqualify a mikva or a spring, as long as the water is attached to it, and one can also immerse one's hands in the mikva and comply with netilas yodaim.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/7/2019 3:15 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2040 Learning the Walk Before the Run?
|
|
|
Q. Is one allowed to study other religions for the sole purpose of being able to be mekarev and bring back the ones that fell and converted to them?
A. Rambam (Avoda Zara 2: 2) mentions that "many books were written by idolaters to explain the ways of serving their deities, and Hashem prohibited studying them." However, on the next chapter (3: 2) he rules that Beis Din has to know the ways of the (avoda zara) service, since they would not be able to punish the transgressors, unless they know that it was actually served. Rambam repeats this ruling in H. Sanhedrin (2: 1) "The judges have to understand the emptiness of avoda zara, so they can stand and judge the transgressors."
The above is based on the teaching of the Talmud: (Sanhedrin 68a and Sifrei - Devarim 18: 9) "When you have come to the land Hashem... is giving you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations." meaning that, to do is prohibited, but to learn to understand how degenerate their actions are, and to teach your children, “Do not do such and such, because this is a heathen custom!" is permitted. (Rashi ibid.)
Similarly, Rambam writes that he extensively read all books on these topics, and from them he understood the reasons of mitzvos (Kovetz Tshuvos HoRambam - Igorois to the Sages of Marseille p. 25, See More Nebuchim 3: 29).
Igrois Moshe (Y.D. 2: 53) permits the learning and teaching of ancient religions, when stressing and explaining the fallacies and misconceptions inherent in them. He further explains (Y.D. 2: 110) that studying books of other religions that contain persuasive material, is only permitted to Gedolei Hador in Torah and Heavenly fear, but not to ordinary people, unless they have been properly prepared and edited.
The well researched sefarim and educational material, written by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (The Real Messiah, etc.), Rabbi Michael Skobac (Jews for Judaism - Missionary Impossible, The DaVinci Code), Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz (The Jewish Response to Missionaries) and others, are great examples of the above rulings.
See also questions 1963 and 1964 in regards to learning Greek philosophy.
Horav Shlomo Miller's shlit'a opinion is that it is permitted only when the information learned will be used in proper kiruv need, the reader is well trained and properly prepared and when the idolatry is also ridiculed and disrespected.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:55 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# 2039 With Gusto or Disgusting?
|
|
|
Q. (see question above) If the majority of people consider the food repugnant, but to this individual it is not, can he eat it or would he transgress on the prohibition of bal teshaktzu?
A. P'ri Chodosh (Y.D. 84: 3) based on the Mishna (Chulin 77a) maintains that a food item that most people find repugnant and repulsive but this particular individual does not, he does not have to follow the usual majority rule, and he is permitted to eat that food. However if the food is detestable for all people and he is the sole exemption, he is prohibited to consume it. The reason being that we then say that his opinion becomes nullified by the rest of the people, and he does transgresses the prohibition of ba'al teshaktzu.
He adds that in the opposite case, when most people do not find the food repulsive, but to his sensitive mind it is, if he eats it, he will transgress that prohibition.
However, P'ri Mrgodim (384: 3) quoting Knesses Hagedola opines that one is prohibited to eat food that most people find repugnant and repulsive, even if he does not, and we do follow majority rule.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that if someone suffers from the very highly sensitive and delicate "aninei hadaas" condition, he will transgress this prohibition even if no one else is bothered or repulsed.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 2/5/2019 3:39 PM |
Tell a Friend
| Ask The Rabbi |
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Important Numbers
