[KollelH blog] 3/24/2013 11:55:00 AM

The Mitzvah of Destroying Chametz

There is a mitzvah to remove and destroy the chametz from one's possession before Pesach. This is derived from the pasuk in parshas Bo that says …tashbisu s'or mibatechem (Shemos 12:15). There are also two lavim associated with owning chametz on Pesach; bal yiraeh and bal yimatzeh.

The Minchas Chinuch discusses the following question regarding the mitzvah of tashbisu (to remove and destroy the chametz from one's possession): is the mitzvah accomplished only by actively owning chametz and destroying it, or can one fulfill the mitzvah by not owning any chametz to begin with? In other words, does one have to actively destroy the chametz or may one fulfill the mitzvah by not ever owning chametz and not lifting a finger (shev vial taaseh) to destroy it.

We find that there are mitzvos that one can fulfill without actively performing an action. On Shabbos there is a mitzvah of shabason which is a mitzvas assay that one must rest and by definition not perform any melachos. If one performs a melacha on Shabbos, aside from the lo sassay, he has transgressed the assay of shaboson. If one does not perform any melachos on Shabbos, he has fulfilled the assay of shabason. Perhaps the assay of tashbisu is the same and if one did not own any chametz before Pesach he will have fulfilled the mitzvah of tashbisu.

The other option is that the mitzvah of tashbisu is similar to that of tzitzis where if one does not have a four cornered garment with tzitzis on it he has not fulfilled the mitzvah. if one does not own a four cornered garment with tzitzis he has not transgressed the mitzvah of tzitzis however he also has not fulfilled it.

There are several differences between these two options. If there is a requirement to actively destroy the chametz before Pesach then obviously one only fulfills the mitzvah if he has chametz finds it and destroys it. this is why we place bread out before bidekas chametz, to ensure that we will have bread to destroy the next day. If there is no need to actively destroy the chametz and one can fulfill the mitzvah if he simply does not own chametz then one would not have to ensure that he has chametz to burn the next day.

Another difference is if another person grabs one's chametz and destroys it before the owner had a chance to do so. Generally, when one steals a mitzvah from another person he must pay him ten zehuvim. If the mitzvah is to actively destroy the chametz then the person who grabbed and burned the chametz would be required to pay the owner ten zehuvim. If the mitzvah is fulfilled by merely not owning chametz without actively destroying it then the person would not have to pay the owner ten zehuvim since the owner fulfilled the mitzvah the same as if he had burned it himself.

The Minchas Chinuch mentions another difference between these two options is in a scenario where one has chametz on Pesach. The mitzvah applies even on Pesach and one must destroy his chametz on Pesach as well. There is a machlokes how one must fulfill the mitzvah of tashbisu if one does have chametz. The Rabanan say that it can be performed by any means of destruction, even eating. Rabbi Yehuda says that it must be done by burning the chametz. According to the Rabbanan, if one ate his chametz on Pesach it would be a means of destruction. However if the mitzvah is only fulfilled by actively destroying the chametz this action will be considered a mitzvah habah biavera, since eating chametz on Pesach is forbidden. According to the Minchas Chinuch when one performs a mitzvah habah biavera he has not fulfilled the mitzvah. However if the mitzvah if fulfilled by simply not owning chametz then eating it on Pesach would not constitute a mitzvah habah biavera and one will have fulfilled the mitzvah of tashbisu.

The Minchas Chinuch says that it is indicative from the Chinuch that he is of the opinion that the mitzvah is fulfilled simply by not owning chametz. This is because the Chinuch says that someone who is traveling before Pesach is obligated in the mitzvah of tashbisu. The Minchas Chinuch says that if the mitzvah required an active destruction then one who would be traveling before Pesach would not be obligated in it.

Another indication that the Chinuch is of the opinion that the mitzvah of tashbisu does not require active destruction is from the fact that he says that women are obligated in the mitzvah. if the mitzvah required an active destruction then women would be exempt since it is a mitzvas assay shehazman grama (time sensitive mitzvah). However if it is not an active requirement then women would be obligated even though it is a mitzvas assay shehazman grama.

One final difference is whether one is required to have kavanah will destroying his chametz. If the mitzvah requires an active destruction then one would be required to have kavana when destroying it. if the mitzvah is fulfilled by simply not owning chametz one would not need kavanah when destroying his chamtetz.

for questions or comments email: RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com

Additionally, Rabbi Fuchs has just come out with an english Torah magazine called " The Kuntris". It is available in your local grocery and other fine retailers. The introductory price is only 1 dollar. 

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 3/24/2013 11:55:00 AM

[KollelH blog] Purim Din Smol Docheh

"Mordechai was second to the king & was well liked by most of his brethren. He seeked good for his nation & spoke with peace to all his children."

As the gemarah tells us some of his brothers were not happy about his position...

K'sav Sofer al hatorah in his drashos on the megilah explains as follows.
They wanted him to use his powerful position to force the multitudes of uncomitted 'yeshainim min hamitzvos' Jews back to observance. But he seeked a softer, though longer, approach of kindness & peace. He was successful in doing what Mt. Sinai did not. He brought the Jews to accept the Torah with love.This is how the megillah ends. Because that is why purim will continue forever.


Only G-D, the Master surgeon could foresee each 'incision' of the holocaust & deem the surgery neccessary. He also foresaw every single one of his children that would be alienated by the massive midas HaDin, & only He could deem it worthwhile.

For the rest of us, we must use din rarely & even then, only half heartedly, with our left weaker hand, perhaps the onlookers will note the true care & love within. But when din is used wholeheartedly - docheh b'shtei yadayim - it alienates not only the the one who is pushed but all the onlookers as well.

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 2/14/2013 09:49:00 AM

[KollelH blog] Reb Yisroel Salanter

Today, the 25^th of Shvat, is the yur tzait of Rav Yisrael Lipkin of Salant commonly known as Reb Yisroel Salanter (1810-1883). He was born in Zager (near Kovno), Lithuania, to Rav Ze'ev Wolf Lipkin, a descendent of the Vilna Gaon.  Rav Yisrael became a close talmid Rav Zundel of Salant, who influenced him to begin the study of mussar. In 1840, he became Rosh Yeshiva of the Rameillas Yeshiva in Vilna, and later opened a yeshiva in Kovno. One of his closest talmidim, Rav Yitzchak Blazer of Petersburg commonly known as Rav Itzeleh compiled many of his teachings and memorable stories about Reb Yisroel's life in the sefer Or Yisroel. Another one of his famous talmidim was Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of New York.

Reb Yisroel was considered a Torah Giant, however he was most famously known for founding the Mussar movement. This movement focused on bettering the individual's character traits. Many of his teachings remain the basis of learning mussar today. He taught that one must endlessly strive for perfection, and must never be content with his spiritual achievements.

Reb Yisroel faced much opposition when he initially bagan teaching mussar. However his advanced level of scholarship helped him prevail and he succeeded in revolutionizing Klal Yisroel and founded the mussar movement. On one occasion Reb Yisroel was to deliver a shir to a large crowd. He had distributed mar mikomos that people could research prior to the shir. In an effort to humiliate Reb Yisroel several pranksters decided to change around the mar mikomos list and distributed a different list to the crowd. When Reb Yisroel reached the podium he noticed the switch of mar mikomos. He hesitated for a brief moment, and then preceded to deliver a new shir based on the new mar mikomos. Reb Itzeleh said that the reason why Reb Yisroel had hesitated was not because he was preparing a new shir; but rather because he was contemplating whether he should deliver the shir or not, for he feared that this feat would impress the pranksters and perhaps be considered haughty.

On another occasion Reb Yisroel was asked to deliver a shir to an audience that contained people who were opposed to learning mussar. At one point one of the big lamdanim asked a question and Reb Yisroel paused for a moment and said you are right. Rav Elya Lapyan said that although Reb Yisroel paused he nevertheless had five different answers to the question that was posed to him. However he knew that his solutions were not accurate. He also knew that if he would suggest his five solutions the one who asked the question would accept his answers because he would not know why they were not accurate. However Reb Yisroel said to himself how can I sell emes with sheker? Thus he decided not to answer the question.

 Here are a few quotes that are attributed to Reb Yisroel: "The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and this was a great wonder. But how much more wonderful is it to transform a corporeal human being into a mensch!" "A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach."

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 2/05/2013 04:00:00 PM

[KollelH blog] 1/18/2013 08:54:00 AM

When Did Makkas Bechoros Occur?

    Dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

There is a contradiction in the pesukim as to when makkas bechoros occurred. The pasuk in this week's parshah says, "vayehi bachatzos halailah, v'Hashem hikah kol bechor b'eretz Mitzrayim… – and at chatzos of the night, Hashem hit every firstborn in the land of Mitzrayim…" (Shemos 12:29). This pasuk states that makkas bechoros occurred by night. The implication from the pasuk in Bamidbar 8:17 is that makkas bechoros occurred by day, for the pasuk says: "b'yom hakosi kol bechor… -- on the day that I hit all of the firstborn…"

Maseches Semachos begins by posing this contradiction, and offers the following solution: Reb Yochanan says that at chatzos of the night, Hashem delivered a lethal blow to all of the bechorim that would kill them; however, they did not actually die until the morning. Hashem made it that their souls remained in them until the morning, in order that the Bnei Yisrael could witness their death.

The Peirush Nachalas Yaakov (found on the bottom of Maseches Semachos) explains why the masechta begins with this medrash. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 39a says that a min (apikores) asked Rebbe Avahu the following question: Hashem is a kohen, as it says "veyikcho li terumah." When Hashem buried Moshe Rabbeinu, in what did He immerse himself? Rebbe Avahu answered that He immersed himself in fire. Tosafos there asks why the min did not inquire as to how Hashem was able to become tamei by burying Moshe Rabbeinu. Tosafos answers that this did not bother the min because he knew that we are considered children of Hashem and that a kohen is permitted to bury his children.

According to Tosafos, Hashem would not be able to be metamei by killing someone, since even a kohen may only become tamei by burying his children, not by killing them. The Haggadah states that Hashem himself performed makkas bechoros. How then did Hashem himself kill the bechorim of Mitzrayim?

It is this question that the Maseches Semachos wishes to address when it brings down this medrash. The beginning of Maseches Semachos discusses the halachos regarding when one is dying but is still alive (goseis). Therefore, it began with a medrash that proves to us that during such a state, a person is not considered dead and thus not yet metamei. Since Hashem only delivered the blow that would kill the bechorim, He was not metamei to the bechorim since they were not yet dead.

On a side note, Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l, is quoted as explaining the discrepancy between the berachah of "ga'al Yisrael" that we say after Shema of Shacharis and the same berachah that we say in Ma'ariv. In Shacharis we say "miMitzrayim g'altanu … kol bechoreihem haragta." The mention of redeeming us from Mitzrayim precedes the mention of killing the bechorim. In Ma'ariv we say "hamakeh b'evraso kol bechorei Mitzrayim vayotzei es amo Yisrael mitocham lecheirus olam." The mention of hitting the bechorim of Mitzrayim precedes that of our redemption from Mitzrayim. This is because, as Maseches Semachos stated that at chatzos of the night Hashem only delivered the blow that would eventually kill the bechorim, the bechorim did not actually die until the morning. So at night we mention the blow that was delivered to the bechorim before the redemption, which only took place the following morning. In Shacharis, which is recited in the morning, we mention the redemption from Mitzrayim before the death of the bechorim because the redemption preceded the actual death of the bechorim, which occurred during the day.

The Shivus Yaakov (1:17) asks the following question on the Maseches Semachos: Why did the Mishnah not simply answer the contradiction in the pasukim (whether makkas bechoros occurred at night or by day) by saying that if a bechor was born after chatzos, even in the morning, he would die as well? The Shivus Yaakov suggests that based on this question it is imperative that a bechor who was born after chatzos did not die. Based on this observation, he rules that if one has a son born to him on the night before Pesach – after chatzos – he does not have to fast for that bechor since  had he been a Mitzri in Mitzrayim, he would not have been killed. Therefore, his father, who would generally have to fast on Erev Pesach for his bechor who is under bar mitzvah age, does not have to fast for his son.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 1/18/2013 08:54:00 AM

If we feel we don't deserve, we'd enjoy all that's served.

[KollelH blog] 1/10/2013 08:57:00 AM

Must One Hear His Own Davening?

Dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

After each of the makkos, Moshe Rabbeinu had to daven to Hashem to stop the makkah. After the makkah of frogs, the pasuk says "…vayitzak Moshe el Hashem al devar hatzefardi'im asher sam l'pharoh – and Moshe cried out to Hashem regarding the frogs that he inflicted on Pharaoh" (Shemos 8:8). This is the only makkah in which we find that the Torah uses the word "vayitzak [cried out]" in reference to how Moshe davened to Hashem. By the other makkos, the Torah uses the word "vayetar." The Sifsei Chachamim asks the question that he says was bothering many people. He asks why the Torah changes its wording by the makkah of the frogs to the word "vayitzak."

The Sifsei Chachamim answers that the frogs were croaking and making a lot of noise. The halacha (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 101:2) states that one who is davening must recite the words loud enough for him to hear what he is saying. Since the frogs were making loud noises, Moshe could not hear his own words. Therefore, he had to scream his tefillah in order to hear his own words.

The Netziv, in his sefer Hemek She'eilah (143:6), points out a contradiction between the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. The Tosefta (Berachos 3:9) says that one should not say the words loud enough to hear them himself. The Yerushalmi (Berachos 2:4) says that optimally one must recite the words of davening loud enough to hear them himself. The Netziv suggests that there is no dispute between the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. Rather, the Tosefta agrees that one must say the words loud enough to hear them himself. The Tosefta, however, is referring to a situation of there being a lot of noise and he cannot hear himself – if he speaks at the decibel in which he would hear himself if there was no noise around him. In this situation the Tosefta says that one should not scream louder in order to hear himself over the noise; rather, it is sufficient to say the words at a decibel whereby he would hear himself if it was not noisy.

Regarding davening Krias Shema alone, one is required to say the words louder when he is in a noisy place in order to actually hear the words that he is saying. But tefillah only requires one to say the words at a decibel that, in a quiet atmosphere, he would hear himself; one does not actually have to hear his own words.

The Netziv seemingly contradicts directly what the Sifsei Chachamim said, namely that in a noisy place one must recite the words of davening louder so he can actually hear what he is saying. The Netziv believes that the halacha in which one must hear what he is saying is not to be taken literally; rather, the halacha only requires that one recite the words at a certain decibel that could generally be heard – regardless of whether he can actually hear himself.

Reb Akiva Eiger (Teshuvos 1:30) discusses whether we can apply to different situations the halacha that writing is considered as if one said the words that he wrote (kesivah kedibur), such as Sefiras Ha'omer. If one were to write what the day's omer was, would he have fulfilled his obligation of counting the omer? Reb Akiva Eiger says that regarding mitzvos in which, optimally, one must hear what he is saying, we cannot apply the halacha of kesivah kedibur. This is because even if we consider as if he said the words that he wrote, he nevertheless did not hear them. Therefore we cannot say that he has fulfilled his obligation in an optimal manner.

Some Acharonim suggest that Reb Akiva Eiger's issue that the application of the halacha of kesivah kedibur does not meet the requirements of hearing that which was written is dependent on the abovementioned machlokes. If the requirement to hear what is being said is to be taken literally (that one must actually always hear himself), Reb Akiva Eiger's issue is indeed a valid one. However, if the halacha that one must hear what he is saying does not dictate that one must actually hear himself but rather it is a decibel level of speech that must always be met, perhaps we can also apply kesivah kedibur to situations requiring one to hear himself. This is because the reason for the halacha that one must hear what he is saying is that otherwise, the words are not considered spoken but is instead considered to be thoughts. Once the words are spoken at a decibel in which one could theoretically hear them, they are considered to be spoken words – even if no one actually heard them.

According to the opinion that holds kesivah kedibur, there is another manner in which words can be considered as spoken and not as mere thoughts – namely by writing them. Written words are considered as if they are spoken, even though no one actually heard them. Therefore, even regarding a situation where optimally one is required to hear what he is saying, one could apply the halacha of kesivah kedibur since the written words will now be considered spoken words and not thoughts.

I believe that Reb Akiva Eiger's issue would apply even if he held the opinion that the halacha that one must hear what he is saying is merely a means to render the words as if they were spoken. This is because even the opinion that one does not actually need to hear one's self nonetheless supports the belief that the words have to be spoken on some decibel that could theoretically be heard in a quiet place. Written words, however, can never be heard; thus we could not apply the concept of kesivah kedibur to a situation that requires one to hear himself

.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 1/10/2013 08:57:00 AM