Q. Is there any truth to this statement:
That when Adam and Eve sinned their clothing was made from animal skins?
A. The verse (Bereshis 3: 21) reads: And Hashem G-d made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and He clothed them. Rashi (ibid.) offers two Aggadic interpretations. The garments refers to a smooth fingernail or scale like covering attached to their skins or it could be a garment made from wool similar to the soft and warm wool from hares. Midrash Rabba (Bereshis 43) maintains that these were the desirable garments that Esav wore and then Rivka gave to Yaakov. Eventually they became the Cohen Gadol’s vestments.
The Talmud (Sota 14a) presents a disagreement between Rav and Shmuel that Rashi explains to be, whether the garments were made of wool or linen.
Talmud (Avoda Zara 11b) mentions that the garments of Adam ended up in Rome, and were used in a peculiar rite performed every seventy years.
Rabenu Bachya (ibid.) describes the garments as being made from the skin of the multicoloured tachash, used in the building of the Mishkan.
Midrash Rabba (ibid.) quotes that in the Sefer Torah of Rabi Meir the word “or,” in “garments of or,” was spelled with the letter alef, meaning light. The Zohar explains that initially they were shiny holy spiritual garments of light that became only skin, after they sinned.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
Q. Is this (the seuda on the third day after the bris) a seudas mitzva?
A. See on the prior two questions that Poskim disagree on this. In general many Chassidic traditions give great importance to this seuda (see Shem Mishmuel – Vayeshev 697, Avodas Yisroel – introduction, Imrei Emes – Likutim p. 96 et. al.) that consider this banquet to be tantamount to receiving the Shechina, as it was in the seuda of Avraham Avinu. It is then that the Patriarch prayed to Hashem that He should remain with him, meaning that Hashem should always be present at this seuda for all generations to come. (Lev Simcha – Devarim p. 79.) It is said that the Bais Aharon of Karlin when about to attend this seuda would call out “ I am about to receive the presence of the Shechina” (Al Pi Hatorah p. 177 n. 116)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that in order to comply with the widely divergent opinions, Divrei Torah should be said in order to make it a certain seudas mitzva.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
Q. (when celebrating the seuda on the third day after the bris) Is the day of the bris counted as day one?
A. From most Poskim it would seem that the day of the bris is day one. However, Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a mentioned that since some maintain (Bris Emes p. 303 quoting seforim, Al Pi Hatorah 9: 62) that this is a seudas hodoa, thanking Hashem for the newborn child and the bris performed, it would be more appropriate to celebrate the day after, when the newborn's pain is already lessening. He suggested that if someone wants to celebrate this seuda, it should be better done after mincha, before sunset and prolonging after tzeis, followed by Ma'ariv.
Zechor L'Avrohom (p. 136) rules that if the bris took place on Thursday, this seuda is omitted, since the honor of Shabbos is that the seudos of Shabbos should belong to Shabbos itself.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
Q. What is the source for the seuda on the third day after the bris milah that some people do?
A. The minhag of making a seuda on the third day after the bris mila is mentioned by many Poskim. Some comment that it is not a widely kept tradition, and debate whether it is a seudas mitzva at all. See Chavas Yoir 70, Sha'arey Teshuvo (O.H. 551: 33), Sh'vus Ya'akov (3: 36), Mahari Bruno (152), et. al.. While other Poskim give it great importance. Derech Pekudecho (2: 28) writes that it is a widespread minhag and the source is the seuda that Avraham Avinu made for the visiting Malochim on the third day after his bris milah. Hanhogas Maharshal (50) maintains that this seuda is even more important than the banquet made at the bris mila itself, since it is mentioned in the Torah (beginning of Vayero). Imrei Emes (Likutim p. 96) quotes seforim that the source is from the great seuda that the Patriarch prepared on the day of “higomel” of Yitzchak ( Bereshis 21: 8). Explaining that the term stands for “on the third day after the milah.”
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that one should follow the traditions of his family
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
Q. 1. When I drive out of Toronto, to the north, west or east, at what points specifically do I need to say tefillas haderech?
2. Would those locations be the same boundaries for techum shabbos?
A. Shulcha Aruch (O.H. 110: 7, from Brochos 29b)) rules that one does not recite tefilas haderech on traveling less than a parsa (approximately four kilometres) after leaving the city. Rosh (Brochos 4: 18) mentions that the reason for this tefila is the danger present when traveling, usually less than that distance there is no sakana.
As a general rule we keep the obligation of reciting brochos limited to the original conditions when our sages established the blessings (see question 708 in this forum in regards to the brocho on Northern Lights.) Travel today is distinctly different from the days when tefilas haderech was established. It is faster and presents different types of dangers than the ones our forefathers faced. Thus giving rise to different opinions in the Poskim regarding when to recite this tefila.
Poskim disagree whether the above distance is measured in time or factual physical space. Meaning the amount of time it would normally take to walk a parsa (about 72 minutes) when travelling by car or similar. Mishna Berura (110: 30) rules that you make a brocho when travelling just a parsa also by train although the time is much shorter. Other Poskim are in doubt. (Avnei Yoshfo O.H. 15) Mishna Berura also maintains that if the road is dangerous you recite even when it is less than a parsa. Divrei Dovid (8), P'ninei Halocho (p. 220) echo the view, when travelling on dangerous roads in Israel.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that when you have any doubt if to recite or no tefilas haderech, you should say it without Hashem's name.
The same applies in regards to from which point you measure the parsa. Usually it means from the place there is no more houses or farms that would offer some protection. However it is not directly related to techum Shabbos, since as explained, the reason for the brocho is different.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. The Rema says that Aramaic and Hebrew are one language. Can I fulfill my obligation to recite Kreias Shema using the Aramaic of Onkelos, even though it is not a spoken language?
A. In question 792 on this forum in regards to counting sefirah in Russian, we wrote; Biur Halocho (beginning of s. 62) in regards to reading Shema in other languages rules that although one complies, it is only if the people of that country know that particular idiom. If they don’t and it is only he and a few others that speak and understand that tongue, he does not comply. Contemporary Poskim debate as to how many people are needed for the Biur Halocho’s requirement. They maintain that as long as it is an established language spoken officially in at least one nation, one would comply, even if only a small minority understands the idiom in the location where he finds himself now. (Megodim Chadoshim – Brochos p. 153, Yabia Omer 5:12:4). Others (Safa Ne’emana 32,) compare it to the proverbial Seventy Languages that were used when the Torah was translated.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that Aramaic today does not fulfill the above mentioned requirements and should not be used for reading shema.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. Should a Bar Mitzva bochur say shecheyanu on his new tefilin, if not for the mitzvah at least for the great pleasure of having new tefilin? Why should tefilin be less than a new suit?
A. Lehoros Nossan (2: 9: 9) quotes Ridbaz that indeed one recites sheheyanu on new tefilin, as he would do on new utensils when he derives pleasure from their acquisition. However he also quotes Avudraham (sha’ar 3) that one only recites this brocho on items that provide physical pleasure. Mitzvos, similar to tefilin that don’t provide any “hanoas haguf” one does not recite sheheyanu. Others (Be’er Eliahu O.H. 53 et. al.) mention that one does not recite this brocho on utensils made of leather, since they involve the death of Hashem’s creatures.. Mogen Avrohom (223: 5) rules not to recite on new seforim, since mitzvos were not given to us for material pleasure. However Mishna Berura (ibid.) quotes Chayei Odom who opines that if someone acquires a sefer he greatly desired and rejoices greatly having it, he should recite, therefore, one should not protest against the ones who do recite. Birur Halocho (O.H. 22) cites contemporary teshuvos such as Beis Hayotzer (4), Chino Dechaye (49), K’naf Renonoh (O.H. 17, Zichron Yehuda, et. al.) that maintain one may recite sheheyanu the first time one dons a new pair of tefiln.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that the accepted and widespread minhag is not to recite sheheyanu.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. A patient who “lo alenu” due to a tumor in his esophagus can't swallow food and is being fed only by introducing food directly to his stomach via a catheter or by using a large syringe filled with food that he may previously chew. Does he make a brocho when he chews that food?
A. Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 210: 2) rules that one who chews food and then expels it from the mouth, does not recite a brocho. However, this particular case may be different since there is after all “hanoas meyov” or the benefit of feeling a full stomach. (see Tosafos – Brochos 14a that debates for what kind of benefit we recite a brocho.)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that no brocho should be recited because the food is not swallowed and is also not ingested in the usual pleasant form.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. A Bar Mitzva bochur who said kidush levana before he became Bar Mitzva, does he have to repeat after if it still is before the end of the zman of kidush levana?
A. Tshuvos R”A Eiger (O.H. 186), Turei Even (Rosh Hashono 27) and Meshiv Dovor (O.H. 1: 18) debate if mitzvos complied with by a minor, have to be repeated when he becomes bar mitzva. However, in regards to kidush levana which is rabbinical Poskim mainly disagree whether a soon to be bar mitzva bochur should wait to recite kidush levana until he becomes biblically liable to keep mitzvos or he may from the onset recite with everyone before. Halichos Shlomo (P'sokim 15: 11) argues that since kidush levana is to begin with only a rabbinical mitzva, there is no point in waiting. However, Yabia Omer (3: 27: 6) maintains that on the onset, when possible (as when weather forecast are favourable) he should wait until the bar mitzva day. He reasons, that a mitzva composed from one single rabbinical level obligation, preempts the one comprised of two or more. Nitey Gavriel (Bar Mitzva 23: 8) suggest that one should wait when possible since the one who complies when obligated is greater than the one who does so voluntarily.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is similar to the Halichos Shlomo above, and that seems to be also the common minhag.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. I bought a shaitel by someone with whom I had no previous experience. She told me to come in quickly as she had shaitels on sale for $xxx. until the end of the week. I did go in to look at what she had. She talked me into getting a $x,xxx shaitel as the hair is European and so much better than the $xxx. one. I chose a shaitel, telling her I needed it for every day and wanted it to be easy to maintain etc. I also made sure it would not get frizzy, which she assured me it would not...
... Is there any Halachic recourse for me to get some compensation for this great expense and headache?
Thank you.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that monetary questions of factual cases where two or more parties are involved should be clarified and answered only by a competent Beis Din or preferably a mediator with both sides equally represented and where all sides of the case and arguments can be evenly questioned and explained. The Rov also suggested that before you file a claim in Beis Din, since you are seeking reimbursement and are the party collecting, the onus of proof is on you. You should therefore consider well if you have the necessary evidence to back your claim, and avoid further losses in monies, effort and time.
Behatzlacha.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. BS"D, Thank you Rabbi Bartfeld. Can I please ask you two more questions, and that will be It. Why did the serpent first approach Eve instead of Adam?
A. Rashi (3: 15) explains “...you came to Eve first only because women are easily enticed, and they know how to entice their husbands.” Interestingly, Be'er Yitzchok (ibid.) remarks, that Adam unlike his wife, ate even without being persuaded.
Another reason amply quoted by Meforshim (Hadeo VeHadibur p. 62 et. al.) is that Chava did not hear directly from Hashem the prohibition of not eating from from the tree, and therefore could be easily persuaded.
Rabbi
A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. If Adam was born both male and female, why couldn't he reproduce himself?
Thank you. Have a nice Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan and have a nice day.
A. Actually, Orach Chaim (2: 18) mentions that they (he uses plural) could reproduce at the stage when (Adam and Eve) were united in one body, since it was then that Hashem gave them the mitzva of P'ru Urbu.
Similarly, Magid Mishna (Ungvarer Rov – p. Tazria) writes that at the original stage, he could multiply by himself (uses singular) without the need of a woman. Interestingly, he debates which part was created first and argues that the feminine side was as Adam was the last of Creation.
Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a pointed out to Beis Aharon (K'lolei Hashas p. 383) who quotes the Medresh Rabba (Bereshis 8) that Adam was originally created as an androgyny. Beis Aharon questions how could he then reproduce (there is a widely quoted opinion in Talmud {Yebamot 81a} that androgyny cannot procreate,) he explains in the name of Yofe Toar that Adam was different since he was created as two bodies united. Ramban (ibid.) offers two explanations depending if Adam could at that stage procreate or no.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. If you are davening with a minyan, but are behind the chazan, (you came late or the chazan is too fast), when would you say or not say "Kel Melech Neeman" in Shema?
If you start Shema before he ends? You are saying birchas Kriyas Shema and hear him finish, then you start Shema? Still before Borchu? Is there a cut off?
A. Remoh (O.H. 61: 3) mentions that they are 245 words in the three parshios of shema, and 248 members in the human body. In order to complete the words to match 248, the shaliach tzibur repeats “Hashem E' Emes” at the end. Remoh adds that when one prays without a minyan and won't hear these three words, he may add Kel Melech Ne'eman at the beginning.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that from the above it stands to reason that the three words added by the prayer leader, will have effect only when the late coming reader is already engaged in reading the shema and listens to them. Otherwise he may add Kel Melech Ne'eman at the beginning of his reading.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. We have a hand blender that we haven't used in several years. we think it is meat but can't quite remember, possibly is dairy.
The top half is a motor, bottom comes off for washing, and made of a plastic body and steel blade.
what is the status?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that since the hand blender was likely used cold and such long time has already passed, the descending metal blade can be kashered and the blender used. From the shaile it seems to be that it was most likely used for meat, so that should be the recommended use.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit"a
Q. There are two entrances to my shul. The back entrance is through a lane-way behind a plaza of retail stores. Behind each store, there are large bins with rotting food and other garbage. I avoid going in this way since it doesn't seem right to enter the King's palace through this smelly mess. On the other hand going in the front entrance means going through the plaza with its noisy throngs of people, a very smoky and smelly outdoor grill and other treif food places. On Shabbos I don't know which entrance is preferable - the noisy unshabbosdik way or the grungy but quiet way.
A. Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that the overruling concern should be which entrance avoids immodest or untzenius encounters especially during summer days.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. I heard mentioned in Rav Shlomo Miller’s name that the reason we suffer from earth warming and severe climate changes is due to the corruptness and immorality of today’s society just like in the generation of the Mavul. Is that correct?
A. Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is may be a likely possibility, but there could be also other contributing factors.
Rabbi
A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. On answer 900 you write that the different opinions on the dimension of a tefach are 11cm, 10.16cm, 10cm, 9cm and 8cm I distinctly remember seeing somewhere that there is an opinion that a tefach is less than 8cm. Is that true?
A. Although most Poskim set the shiur tefach according to Rav Chaim Noeh zt”l to 8.cm. There are indeed opinions that maintain the amount is less that 8.cm. (or even slightly more.) Simchas Yisroel (4: n. 247) quotes the shiur to be 7.84cm while Chazon Ish shiur varies between 9.82 and 9.42 cm., depending if the tefach has the fingers in a “sochakos” or loosely closed position or if we are dealing with fingers “atzuvos” or tightly held together. Midos Veshiurei Torah (5: 18) and Taharas Cohanim (p.5) quote an opinion of only 7.6cm. According to these opinions windows that are 55cm. wide would meet the seven tefachim minimum requirement.
However, Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is not to rely on the onset on such lenient opinions, when you can easily open two windows and have a complete shiur according to all.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. Is there a problem of Sheviis with hadassim – can I use them for besomim in havdolah?
A. Sefer Hashmitta (from HagrI”M Tikotinsky zt:l, 7: 4: 6) mentions that hadasim like the lulav and arovos, do not acquire the holiness of sheviis, since they are mainly planted with the intention of being used for their mitzvah, therefore they could also be used for smelling purposes. He also quotes a similar opinion from Tzitz Hakodesh (1: 15) in the name of Maharil Diskin. Nesiv Hashmita quotes an analogous view in the name of the Chazon Ish. Although Chut Hashani maintains that the minhag of people is to be lenient, some are machmir. Yalkut Yosef (Mitzvos Hatluyos Ba'aretz p.444) quotes dissenting opinions at to what the opinion of the Chazon Ish is. and also quotes some Poskim that are stringent.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is to be lenient.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. If a Seudas Bar Mitzva is done on Motzei Shabbos a week after the bochur's birthday (he was born bein hashmoshos, so it could not be done on the prior Shabbos) is it still considered a Seudas Mitzva?
A. Mogen Avrohom (O. H. 225), rules that it is a mitzvah for a father to make a seuda on the day his son becomes Bar Mitzva, as on the day he enters the Chupah.
Mishna Berura (ibid. 8) explains, that the reason for the seuda is; that now his son has become an Ish Yisroel who is obliged in keeping the mitzvos of the Torah. Shaar Hatzion (ibid. 9) quoting Eliahu Rabba, points out as the source for this Halacha, the known Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kama (37).
The Maharshal there mentions that there is no greater seudas mitzvah, than the one we make for a Bar Mitzva, since we celebrate and praise Hashem for the opportunity of the former kattan, to now comply with the mitzvohs as a Metzuveh Veo-se, or one that is required to do them. And we know that godol hametzuve ve-ose mimi she-ayno metzuve ve-ose. Responsa Maharam Brisk (2: 68) mentions that the prime time for this seuda is on the day he becomes Bar Mitzva. The reason some wait until Shabbos is that that is when people are more likely to attend. Piskey Teshuvo (Y.D. 217: 16) quoting Chavos Yoir avers that up to three days after the bo vayom it is still considered a seudas mitzva since the affects and impact are still present. This being similar to the Takonas Ezra of reading the Torah on Monday and Thursday so three days will not elapse without Torah or the three days given after Shabbos for reciting Havdala. Divrei Malkiel (1: 3) asserts that once tefilin have already been donned, there is no more point on making a seudas mitzva unless a drosho is said. Nitey Gavriel (Bar Mitzva 16 n. 2) mentions that it is already customary to wait until Shabbos.
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit'a opinion is that even on the second Shabbos if the Bar Mitzva bochur says a drosho it is considered still a seudas mitzva.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Q. I was attending a neighbourhood Simchas Bais Hashoeva and a neighbor walked in in the sukkah with his friendly, well behaved but rather large family dog, that did not seem to bother anyone and trilled the children. Is it correct to bring in a dog to a sukkah?
A. On question 861 on this forum, in regards to a seeing eye dog to go up the bimah when the blind owner is given an aliyah, we mentioned the following; Igrois Moshe (O.H. 1: 45) permits the attendance of a seeing eye dog to shul when needed. Sha'are Halacha Uminchag (p.204) further asserts that from the fact that the Talmud (Yuma 21b) describes the heavenly fire resting in the altar as taking the form of a dog, it would seem that there is no unsuitable connotation in a dog's presence, other Poskim disagree.
However. Chelkas Ya'akov (O.H. 34) differs with the Igrois Moshe leniency, since the presence of the dog may cause levity and frivolous distractions especially among the youngsters. He also argues about safety, two concerns that may not seem valid today in many shuln. Yalkut Yosef (150: 25) quoting Horav Ovadia Yosef zt”l is also stringent since the dog could easily be placed outside, and the blind be helped by the other attendants to the shul. (See Hatefila Vehilchateha p. 170)
Horav Shlomo Miller's Shlit”a opinion is that if it is possible for someone to help the blind man up the bimah it is preferable. The most important issue is to avoid this becoming a source of machlokes and conflict.
In general, we find conflicting attitudes in regards to dogs in our tradition. Megaleh Amukos points out that the gimatria of “kelev ra'a” or bad dog is 322 same as Baal Tzefon, while the numerical value of “kelev tov” or good dog equals Eliahu. This alludes to the aphorism (Bava Kama 60b) if the dogs yowl, the Angel of Death is entering the city, if they revel, Eliahu Hanovi is coming. Rosh Simchosi (Vaero p. 462) quotes Mekubalim that maintain it is the “k’lavim dik’dusha” who sing shira and on whom the pasuk (Shemos 11: 7) says “And to the Bnei Yisroel no dog will.” Yet, he also quotes the saying that the one who speaks lashon hora’a will reincarnate in a dog (see P’sachim 116a.) We also find that the mechir kelev or monies obtained from a dog’s sale cannot be used for the purchase of a korban and are comparable to the wages of a harlot. The dog was punished because he was in the group of the three who continued cohabitation on Noach’s Teva (Sanhedrin 108b.) Then again Divrei Yosher (Sanhedrin p. 101} quotes the saying that “kelev” stands for “kulo lev,” he is all heart and totally bonds with his master to become man’s best friend. There is also an old Yidish adage that if a Yid owns a dog, either the dog is not a dog or the Yid is not a Yid.
Horav Shlomo Miller’s Shlit”a opinion is that in principle if one owns a dog that freely and constantly roams around his house, he would be allowed to be in the suka too, as this complies with “teshvu ke’in toduru,” dwell in you suka, as you would in your house. However, it is commendable to create and maintain a higher spirit of kedusha in the suka than in the house. On entering someone else suka with a dog, he should ask permission first. As in previous question; the most important issue is to avoid this becoming a source of machlokes and conflict or for the ba’al habbais to publicly embarrass his guest.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a
Important Numbers
