Healing an Idolater

(Gittin 70) For a skin disease (moist outside and dry inside), he should take seven plump wheat stalks and roast them over a new hoe and smear himself with the oil that exudes from them. Rav Shimi bar Ashi used this remedy for a certain idolater for “something else” (leprosy), and it cured him.

Tosfos asks from the Gemora in Avodah Zarah (26b) which states that it is forbidden to heal an idolater. The Gemora rules that one may not assist an idolater woman giving birth, even for payment, for she will raise the child to serve idols!?

Tosfos answers that Rav Shimi was permitted to heal the idolater, for this would help him perfect his medical skills, and thus enable him to heal other Jews.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah adds that Rav Shimi was not an expert practitioner at all, and he was training when he cured the idolater.

Furthermore, in cases where the idolater knows that the Jew has the ability to cure him, it would be permitted to heal him, for otherwise, it would propagate hatred from them to us.

Alternatively, there may be a distinction between a child being born, who will serve idols, and one who already worships idols.

The Geresh Yerachim asks: How was Elisha permitted to heal Naaman from his leprosy?

He answers that Elisha knew that Naaman would not serve idols any longer, and therefore, it was permitted.

Read more!

Moshe and Ba'al Pe'or

Rabbi Chama b’Rabbi Chanina says (Daf Yomi: Sotah 14a): Why was Moshe buried by the house of Pe’or (an idol)? In order to atone on what happened by Pe’or (the Jewish men were enticed by the Moabite women into depravity and idolatry).

Why was Moshe chosen to be buried there to atone for this sin? What level in greatness did Moshe possess that was being used as the counterbalance to Pe’or?

Reb Chaim Shmuelewitz states that the idolatry of Pe’or is the attribute of wantonness. It indicates that a person has no restraint and the feelings or rights of others do not concern him. [The procedure of serving this Avodah Zarah involved defecating before the idol.] He is solely interested in himself. This is why Moshe Rabbeinu was buried opposite Pe’or. Moshe is the epithet of what it means to be interested in his task and mission of leading Klal Yisroel, and his own personal concern is the farthest thing from his mind. Moshe is the faithful servant that Hashem has complete trust in him.

This is why he can receive the “klil tiferes,” - the crown of glory on his head. A king, when he temporarily removes his crown from his head (due to its weight or on account of the heat), will not place it on the head of his vice-minister for several reasons. If someone would walk in and observe that the king’s crown is on his head, they would assume that he is indeed the king. Furthermore, the vice-minister himself would entertain those feelings. The king, therefore, would place it on a “hook on the wall.” No one will consider that the hook became king. The Holy One, Blessed be He, can place His “crown of glory” on Moshe’s head, for he is the ultimate faithful servant. Moshe will not suppose that he became the king, and nobody who sees the crown on his head will think that way.

Read more!

CIRCUMCISION BEFORE EXECUTION

Tosfos states that if a person would destroy his fellow’s eye while he was killing him, it would not be regarded as if he blinded him and murdered him (in which case, you might think that we should punish him for both actions, by executing him and exacting payment for the eye); but rather, it is considered as if he killed him in a more painful manner. Chashukei Chemed derives from this Tosfos that there is no prohibition to wound a fellow at a time that he is being executed anyway.

Using this principle, it is possible to answer the following question posed by Reb Yosef Engel in Gilyonei HaShas to Avoda Zara (10b). The Gemora states: The Caesar decreed that Ketiah (a gentile) should be put to death. As they were escorting him to the death chamber, a certain matron called out and said, “Woe is to the ship that leaves without paying its taxes first.” Rashi explains: Ketiah was being executed for supporting the Jews; if he would not circumcise himself before his death, he will not merit a portion in the World to Come together with them. Ketiah thereby, fell on top of his foreskin and cut it off. He said, “I now have paid my tax. I will leave this world and enter into the World to Come.”

Reb Yosef Engel asks: It appears that Ketiah did not satisfy all the requirements of conversion, for he didn’t immerse in a mikvah and he didn’t accept the yoke of fulfilling all the mitzvos; if so, shouldn’t there have been a prohibition to cut his foreskin? Isn’t he violating the prohibition of wounding oneself?

In the sefer Shabbos Shaboson, the following novel ruling is brought in the name of Rav Yosef Tzikonovsky: If one is being brought to be executed, he is allowed to circumcise himself even though his brothers had died on account of circumcision (normally, that would preclude a third brother from circumcision). Since he is going to die anyway, he would be permitted to circumcise himself, although the procedure itself can lead to his death. He provides a fascinating source from the Abudraham: It is our custom, when saying the words: “V’omer lach b’damayich chayi,” that we place some of the wine on the lips of the child. This is based upon the Medrash which states that after the sin of the Golden Calf, as some of the Jewish people were being killed, Moshe would circumcise them, Aharon would uncover the foreskin and Yehoshua would give them to drink (from the ashes of the Golden Calf causing them to die). All forty years in the Desert, there was no circumcision because of the burdens of traveling and because the Northern Wind did not blow (which was necessary to heal them). Moshe and Aharon did not want them to die without a circumcision and without accepting the yoke of mitzvos. Yehoshua gave them to drink, leading to their death. We give the circumcised child to drink and say: This circumcision and drinking should lead to life, not death.

Accordingly, Ketiah, could circumcise himself prior to his death, and he needn’t be concerned with the prohibition of wounding himself unnecessarily.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 4 - ALL ABOUT ANGER

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger.

The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Pesachim which states regarding one who becomes angry; if he is a Torah scholar, his Torah will depart him and yet our Gemora states that a Torah scholar who is not harsh like iron is not considered a talmid chocham.

He answers that if he becomes angry for the honor of Hashem and if it would have been impossible to accomplish this without getting angry; it is not only permitted but warranted. An example for this would be to instill fear into one’s students ensuring that they will not stumble into sin.

The Acharonim ask from the Gemora (20) which states that a person should always strive to be soft like a reed and not harsh like a cedar tree. It is brought in the name of Reb Yonason Eibshitz that if a person needs to get angry, he should make sure that the anger is only on the surface but inside he should remain soft. This is what Ravina meant when he said that one should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to remove anger from one’s heart.

The Mishna in Avos (5:10) states that it should be difficult for a person to get angry and easy to be appeased. Rabbeinu Gershom explains our Gemora to mean that a person should get angry and it should be difficult to appease him. This is seemingly not consistent with the Mishna in Avos.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 54) answers that here the Gemora is referring to a talmid chocham that issues a ruling. He is required to exhibit anger in order to ensure that the listeners will adhere to the halacha. He should not be easily appeased so people will not say that his ruling was actually a mistake but he is too embarrassed to admit it. This is what Rav Ashi meant when he said that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. If he is appeased readily, they will not rely on his rulings in the future.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - Belt of the Kohen Gadol

The Gemora explained the reason as to why the kohen gadol cannot wear his gold garments into the Holy of Holies when performing the Yom Kippur service. This is based on the rule en kategor na'aseh sanegor - a prosecuting attorney cannot become a defense attorney.

The Turei even asks that this does not explain why the avnet, the belt of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur was different that the one he wore during the year During the year, the belt consisted of wool and linen and on Yom Kippur, it was made only out of linen. Since there wasn’t gold anyway, what was the purpose for the change?

It is written in Vayikra “You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you.” (Judaica Press) The Ramban cites the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim to explain the reason for this prohibition. It was well known that the clothes that the sorcerers used to wear when they were performing their black magic were made out of wool and linen. Their activities were performed for the sake of their idols and demons. The Torah wanted Klal Yisroel to distance themselves from idolatry and therefore prohibited the wearing of clothes that contained wool and linen. The Chinuch uses a similar analogy to explain the prohibition.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita says that it emerges from these Rishonim that one of the concepts behind the prohibition of wearing shatnez is based on idolatry. Perhaps this can explain why the kohen gadol does not wear the belt of shatnez into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. A garment consisting of wool and linen is regarded as a kategor – a prosecutor since it bears resemblance to the idolaters clothing.

Read more!

Rosh Hashana - Daf 23 - View from Above

Good morning AA. At the end of yesterday's daf, the gemara says that the sun never saw the other side of the rainbow so no one will have any arrow-shooting related suspicion.

From an airplane, you can see a full circle rainbow. Here is a photo. It's not that the bow faces the other way -- it is that from the sky, it is not a bow at all. It is a circle...

Good Shabbos@!

Ezra

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Drainbow%2Bcircle%2Bairplane%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=749&h=477&imgurl=www.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fmedia%2Ff%2Ff3%2Fglory_kaler_big.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fwikipedia%2Fg%2Fgl%2Fglory__rainbow_.html&size=38.3kB&name=glory_kaler_big.jpg&p=rainbow+circle+airplane&type=jpeg&no=5&tt=6&oid=5f62f426deb81c20&ei=UTF-8

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - Rav Elyashiv on Dolls

There was a report in a newspaper that HaRav Eliyahu ruled that baby dolls are included in the prohibition of owning statues. I have not independently confirmed this ruling, however Rav Elyashiv shlita in his sefer on Rosh Hashanah concurs with this ruling. I quote from the sefer below.

Jerusalem - In a tough break for the children of Orthodox Jewish families, a former grand rabbi of Israel has urged parents to amputate their dolls to avoid the perils of idolatry.

Basing the move on a Biblical ban on the possession of idols, Mordechai Eliyahu, a Sephardic rabbi, broadcast his edict on a religious radio station calling for an arm or a leg to be dismembered.

In the case of a teddy bear or other stuffed animals, the children will see their beloved toys lose an ear or an eye instead.

"It is very important that these toys do not remain intact so as to remove the element of idolatry," said Eliyahu.

His son, Shmuel Eliyahu, himself a rabbi in the northern town of Safed, said that it was inappropriate to own statues or dolls, even to play with or for artistic purposes.

"They need to be amputated or at least altered," he said.

Shmuel revealed that his father had forced one of his followers to snap off the ear of a replica of a statue of Moses by Michelangelo that he had bought at an exorbitant price.

Religious edicts are not legally obliging in Israel. - Sapa-AFP

The Maharit (2:32) states that dolls which are made for the sake of children to play with are considered a temporary action and they are not included in this prohibition. Rav Elyashiv shlita cites Acharonim who disagree with this ruling and state that it is a Biblical question and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Rav Elyashiv rules stringently and he says that one must deface the form of the dolls somewhat in order for it to be permitted to remain in the house.

Here is a summary of some of the conclusions from Harav Ovadia Yossef in regards to idolatry and specifically pertaining to dolls, where he rules that it is permitted.

1. It is forbidden to make a protruding image of a man, and it is forbidden to leave it in one's house. This is only if it is a complete image, but a portrait up to the chest is not forbidden. It is permitted to make dolls for children that look like a full person, and certainly to buy and sell them.

It is permitted to take a photograph and to paint the picture of a person, which is not protruding at all. Some are stringent about this, but the custom is to be lenient.

It is forbidden to make the image of the four forms that were on the Heavenly chariot: the lion, eagle, ox and person. This is only when one makes all four together.

2. A protruding image of a person, in which one only sees one side (a profile) is permitted since this is not a complete image of a person.

3. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one can not make the image of the sun, moon and stars, whether protruding or flat. Rabbi Yosef Hayim explained that it is permitted if one does not make the full picture of the sun. However, a picture of the moon is forbidden even if a part is missing, since that it is how it is seen at times. The Maharam Mirotenberg permitted a picture, made only of colors that is not protruding at all. However, many do not agree with his opinion, and it is best not to rely on it.

4. It is forbidden to build a house in the image of the Bet Hamikdash, in its exact measurements, It is also forbidden to make a shulhan or menorah with seven branches, as existed in the Bet Hamkidash. If the menorah has seven branches but has electric lights on top, with no place for oil, it is permitted.

5. A small model of the Mishkan, for educational purposes, is permitted.

6. A cross, which Christians hang around their necks, does not have the status of Avodah Zarah, since Christians do not bow down to them, and the crosses are only a reminder of their avodah zarah. If a Jew finds one, he may sell it to a gentile. If a medal is given to a Jew by the government on which there cross, he may wear it. It is better that he not do so regularly, but only when he is visiting government officials or on official occasions. (End of summary)

I heard a Shiur from Rabbi Eli Mansour who cited the sefer Halichos Olam (7:281) from HaRav Ovadia Yossef where he rules that it is permitted to buy dolls for the children. He explains the reasoning for this as follows: Everyone knows that the dolls are not intended for worshipping and therefore there is no concern that others will suspect that the dolls are for avoda zora. Secondly, he states, that most of the time, the dolls are mistreated and handled in a degrading manner and therefore it would not be prohibited. He does rule stringently regarding a trophy that is a full image and sits on top of a mantel with honor: there it is a legitimate concern and one should deface it somewhat.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - The Permissibility of Photographing People

(The Meoros Daf Hayomi from the Kollel Sochitshov issued words of Torah on the Daf. This was taken from their kuntrus on Bava Kamma 5762. It can be found here.)

The Gemora in Bava Kamma describes how already in ancient times it was the custom to honor great people by engraving their likeness on coins. So it was with Dovid and Shlomo, and before them with Avrohom and Yitzchok. Tosfos (S.V. Matbeya Shel Avrohom) contends that it was not their image on the coins, as it is forbidden to forge a human image; rather it was their names that were inscribed.

The source of the prohibition to create a human likeness even for decoration is found in the posuk (Shemos 20:20), “Do not make with me gods of silver and gods of gold” (Rosh Hashana 24b, Rambam Hilchos Acum 3:10, Chinuch Mitzva 39). The Rambam explains the reason for this prohibition is so that a casual observer should not mistakenly reach the conclusion that these images were meant to be avoda zora.

There is a debate amongst the Rishonim as to what comes under the prohibition. According to the Ravad (ibid) and the Ramban (see Tur Y.D.141) included are engraving, embossing, or painting of a human image. However, they do express a lenient ruling as to the ownership of engraved or painted images if they are found; but not an embossed (protruding) image. The Rambam differs and maintains that there is no prohibition to make an image by engraving or painting; the Torah forbade exclusively embossing. Though the Shulchan Oruch (141:4) rules in favor of the Rambam, the Taz insists that in the matter of making human images one should not adopt any leniencies.

When the Gaon R’ Eliezer of Brod was installed as Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, one of the local Jews decided to mark the festive occasion in a unique manner. He issued a commemorative medallion which bore the likeness of the new Rav. The Yavetz writes (responsa Sheilos Yavetz, I:170) that upon seeing this he was shocked to his very core. Though the Shulchan Oruch (ibid 7) forbids only an image of a full human, whereas the image of just a face is permitted, the Yavetz takes the more stringent view of the Smag, the Taz (ibid S.K. 15) and some Rishonim who forbid this as well. The Yavetz further points out that even according to the more lenient poskim it is only a featureless face that is allowed. (See the responsa for how the Yavetz derives this from the Tosafos in our sugya.) In the end, declares the Yavetz triumphantly, the medallion was banned by the Dutch king who viewed the matter as an impingement of his royal status.

The Painting of the Chacham Tzvi: The Yavetz’s father, the Chacham Tzvi, was extremely strict for himself and would not even allow his face to be drawn. We know this from his son who describes with great emotion how, “The true saint, my father and Rebbe, our great master, may Hashem be with him forever… went to visit the Sephardic Kehilla in London. He was greeted with great respect the like of which is unheard of. He was escorted into town in a royal floatilla amidst great jubilation.” The kehilla, relying on the majority of poskim had commissioned an artist to draw his countenance. The Chacham Tzvi due to his “great saintliness and holiness” refused to permit this. The hosts were unable to restrain themselves and the artist managed with great speed and unusual talent to paint an extraordinary painting. So true was his rendition that the Yavet”z declares, “All that is missing is the breath of life.”

What is the halacha regarding taking a snapshot? The Taz’s opinion that even a flat image is forbidden has led Poskim to question the legitimacy of photographing people. A reason to be lenient is explained by R’ Moshe Sternbuch, Shlit”a (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos Vol. III, 263). The prohibition includes only image making formed by direct action. The process of photography and film development does not fit into this category, since the reactions of chemical to light rays cause the picture to appear. He concludes that customarily photography is permitted.

It is interesting to note that many Gedolim for Kabbalistic reasons insisted not to be photographed.Someone drew a picture of the Steipler Gaon,zt’l, during his army service in Russia. The Steipler paid an entire day’s ration for the picture and immediately destroyed it (Toldos Yaakov, p. 30).

Read more!