DHYB Monthly Bulletin, Elul, English, FOR PRINT, 09

Shu”t Chazon Nochum (Siman 6) rules that it is forbidden for this Jew
to don tefillin during his confinement because to do so would cause their
future destruction. In his discussion of the issue, he attempts to adduce
that it is permitted for this Jew to don tefillin, since he is not doing any
direct actual destruction of the tefillin, merely a grama (an indirect cause),
and perhaps the present mitzvah is preferred over the future grama. Proof
for such an argument can be found in the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 18A)
where it is reported that Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon was learning Torah
and had a Torah scroll with him. Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma warned him that the
non-Jews would burn him together with the scroll, yet we don’t find that
Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon was concerned with the grama of burning the
Torah scroll. Another proof is brought from the Gemara (Shabbos 130a),
which describes how Elisha Baal Kenafayim wore his tefillin during times
of severe decrees of persecution and wasn’t concerned with the non-Jews
discovering and disgracing them.
Nevertheless, the Chazon Nochum concludes that it is forbidden for
this Jew to don tefillin. His brother, the Tchebiner Gaon, in Shu”t Dovev
Meisharim (vol. 1, 99) concurs that it is prohibited for this Jew to come into
contact with tefillin so long as his disease is contagious and will cause the
tefillin to be destroyed.
There are Poskim who disagree with such a conclusion. Shu”t Imrei
Dovid (Siman 218) rules that since this Jew has a present mitzvah to don
tefillin, he must obey the mitzvah and cannot abstain for fear of their
future destruction. In this case, it is not considered that this Jew caused
the tefillin to be destroyed and he is not transgressing the Lo Saaseh of
’‫ סעיף ח‬,‫ סימן ל”ח‬- ’‫ סעיף א‬,‫ סימן ל”ג‬:‫אלול תשע”ה‬
Topics relevant to the material learned this month in Daf HaYomi B’Halacha
The Kovetz Darach Kochav Miyaakov (issue 4, Kislev 5749, pg.
70) reports that once, during a halachic discussion with another posek
regarding this topic, the Tchebiner Gaon related a story that happened
to his brother, the Chazon Nochum. While fleeing the Nazis, he always
zealously guarded his tefillin. When he was caught with them, the Nazis
grabbed his tefillin and threw them to the ground in contempt. The
Chazon Nochum attempted to shield the tefillin from disrespect, and
the Nazis violently tore them from him and increased their disgrace. The
Chazon Nochum escaped to a nearby village, entered the first house,
and immediately collapsed with a heart attack – his heart was unable to
tolerate the vision of the disgrace of the tefillin. The Tchebiner expressed
that, had the lenient Poskim been aware of the extent of his brother’s
concern over the disgrace of tefillin, they would certainly not have
disagreed with his aforementioned opinion.
May the retzuos of tefillin be blackened with dye made from husks of shemitah produce? Which halachah regarding the production of retzuos is derived from their
need to be soft? Do chemicals applied to the leather of retzuos need to be applied lishmah? If the letter ‫ א‬was written in the shape of an X, is it kosher? Do the
sides of the retzuos need to be black like the outer surface? Is it permissible to bring tefillin to a hospital in circumstances where the patient’s articles are going to
be incinerated to prevent contagion?
May the retzuos of tefillin be blackened
with dye made from husks of shemitah
produce?
The Shulchan Aruch (32:3) writes that the retzuos should be made
from the hides of kosher animals. The Mishnah Berurah (§16) explains that
the reason is because only kosher animals are fit for the purpose of holy
articles. Aside from the substance of the retzuos material, there are two
other aspects which need halachic clarification whether they are required
to be made from a kosher source - “min hamutar beficha”: the dye used to
blacken the retzuos, and the coatings applied to polish the surface.
JOIN THE “INTERNATIONAL
YOM LIMUD AND TEFILLAH”
THIS COMING TUESDAY, 24 ELUL - SEP. 8
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT 888-5-DIRSHU EXT. 142
JOIN THOUSANDS WHO LEARN DAF HAYOMI B’HALACHA
AND MASTER THE HALACHOS OF DAILY LIVING!
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO RECEIVE A FREE POCKET LUACH, CALL 888-5-DIRSHU.
888-5-DIRSHU | 212 SECOND STREET, SUITE 404B | LAKEWOOD, NEW JERSEY 08701
A heart-wrenching query is discussed in the Poskim concerning an ill
patient who is quarantined due to the contagious nature of his malady,
and any articles with which he comes in contact need to be destroyed
for fear of contamination and spreading the deadly disease. The question
was raised whether it is permitted to bring this Jew a pair of tefillin to
use, with the understanding that upon his recovery (or demise, ‫ )ר”ל‬they
will need to be destroyed like his other possessions. The issue is whether
we may ignore the future destruction of the tefillin for the sake of the
Jew fulfilling the mitzvah in the present, or we must be concerned for the
future destruction and prevent it even at the expense of losing the present
mitzvah.
“Lo saasun ken laHashem Elokeichem” which prohibits destroying articles
of kedushah (holiness). [This is in contrast with a circumstance where
there is no fulfillment of the obligation to wear tefillin, in which case it
is forbidden for one to bring tefillin into contact with a diseased person
whose contamination will necessitate their destruction; in such a case, the
contamination is considered caused by the Jew and is forbidden.]
Bottom Line MG: 718.377.4567
Is it permissible to bring tefillin to a hospital
in circumstances where the patient’s
articles are going to be incinerated to
prevent contagion?
DAF HAYOMI B’HALACHA
Issue
MONTHLY BULLETIN #23
‫בס”ד‬
lighting Chanukah candles (from which it is forbidden to derive benefit)
made of shemitah oils, citing their reasoning that the benefit of fulfilling
the mitzvah does not constitute acceptable constructive benefit when the
regular benefit of usage is restricted. He deduces that they would therefore
prohibit the dying of retzuos which will not yield the type of benefit
acceptable for shemitah produce. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman disagrees
with their ruling, and explains that the benefit of fulfilling a mitzvah
constitutes constructive benefit which permits consuming shemitah
products. He cites the Peirush of the Ra”Sh Sirilau (Sheviis Perek 8) as
stating this explicitly. However, the Derech Emunah (ibid §49) quotes
the Chazon Ish who agrees with the stringent Acharonim who prohibit
using shemitah oil for Chanukah candles; and in Biur Hahalacha (ibid.
s.v. shemadlik) offers an alternate explanation of the words of the Ra”Sh
Sirilau. [Regarding Chanukah candles, see Biurim Umusafim in the Dirshu
Mishnah Berurah 673:1§2 footnote 4.]
Regarding the black dye, the Noda Beyehudah (Orach Chaim vol. II,
Siman 3, in a response from the son of the Noda Beyehudah) writes that its
ingredients must have originally been kosher, “min hamutar beficha”. The
Shu”t Maharshag (O”C 24) rules leniently, allowing non-kosherDaf
ingredients
HaYomi
to be used. The Keses Hasofer (23:2) concurs with the stringent opinion of
the Noda Beyehudah.
Schedule presented by Dirshu
Regarding the coatings used to polish the surface of the retzuos,
the Noda Beyehudah (ibid.) rules leniently and allows for ingredient of
non-kosher origin. The Keses Hasofer (ibid.) agrees that even non-kosher
ingredients are valid, but maintains that lechatchilah the polish should
consist only of ingredients that were originally kosher.
Fordiscusses
a FREE pocket luach,
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo 1:42)
contact Dirshu
whether it is permissible to use ingredients made from shemitah
husks to
at 888-5-DIRSHU
make the black dye for retzuos. Products with kedushas sheviis may only
be consumed in a manner of constructive benefit (see Derech Emunah
Hilchos Shemitah Perek 5), and shemitah husks used to make dyes for
human clothing may only be used to dye products from which a Jew will
derive personal benefit (ibid. §57, 60). The only personal benefit a Jew
will derive from the retzuos is the fulfillment of the mitzvah of tefillin, and
the concept “mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu” (which teaches that fulfillment
of a mitzvah does not constitute hana’ah benefit) seems to disqualify
the usage of dye from shemitah husks. Rav Shlomo Zalman quotes the
Acharonim (Peas Hashulchan 5:9 and Imrei Yosher 1:100) who prohibit
1
Seize theOpportunity!
’‫ סעיף ח‬,‫ סימן ל”ח‬- ’‫ סעיף א‬,‫ סימן ל”ג‬:‫אלול תשע”ה‬
Which halachah regarding the production of
retzuos is derived from their need to be soft?
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) rules that the retzuos must be produced with
ibbud lishmah (tanning with intention for the purpose of retzuos tefillin).
The Mishnah Berurah (§18) explains that despite the ruling of the Rambam
regarding batim (the housings of the tefillin) that they do not require ibbud
lishmah, the retzuos are different and even the Rambam rules that retzuos
require ibbud lishmah. The Mishnah Berurah refers to the Levush and Mogen
Avrohom for the reasoning of this view, but does not elaborate. It appears that
they offer differing reasons for the requirement for ibbud, and both are of the
opinion that if the ibbud is required, it must be performed lishmah.
AS WE APPROACH THE YOMIM NORAIM, SECURE THE GREAT ZECHUSIM
THAT ARE GUARANTEED FOR THOSE WHO LEARN HALACHA DAILY.
THOUSANDS ACROSS THE WORLD ARE PARTICIPATING. JOIN NOW!
On the Yahrtzeit of the
Chofetz Chaim, this
coming September 8th,
‫כ”ד אלול‬, a delegation
of Gedolei Rabbonim,
Poskim and a group of
senior members of Dirshu’s
hanhala, will be traveling
to Radin to daven for the
success of Daf HaYomi
B’Halacha participants.
Bottom Line Marketing Group: 718.377.4567
Please fill out the
form below and submit
before September 6th
in order to take advantage of
this unique opportunity.
Harav Binyomin Finkel, Mashgiach Mir Yeshiva,
davening at the Chofetz Chaim's kever during a
previous Dirshu mission to Radin
YES!
I would like to have the delegation of Gedolei Rabbonim daven on my behalf at the
Chofetz Chaim’s Kever, on his upcoming Yahrtzeit.
Hebrew name _______________________
Full name __________________________________________
Mother’s Hebrew name _______________
Address ___________________________________________
 I am presently a participant in the
Daf HaYomi B’Halacha Program
___________________________________________________
 I undertake, bli neder, to join the
Daf HaYomi B’Halacha program*
Phone number _____________________________________
Email address ______________________________________
*A kabbalah, the sefarim teach us, strengthens one’s resolve. It is understood that the kabbalah is bli neder
and that circumstances can crop up that will make it difficult to keep. There is no minimum time requirement.
Please fill in the pertinent information, and return by
fax or email, no later than September 6, 2015/22 Elul.
Tel: 888.5.Dirshu ext. 141
Fax: 732.987.3949
Email: [email protected]
DEADLINE EXTENDED THROUGH SUNDAY, SEPT. 6TH, 9 PM
1
The Levush (32:37) explains that the difference between the batim and
retzuos is due to their function. The batim serve to protect the parshiyos and
must retain their specific shape (ribua), and that requires them to be hard
and rigid. Since the tanning process softens the leather, the halachah doesn’t
demand that the batim undergo any ibbud; therefore there is no place for a
requirement that the ibbud be lishmah. The retzuos, however, need to be tied
and wrapped, necessitating flexibility; therefore they require ibbud.
The Mogen Avrohom (§4) explains that since the retzuos are required
by halachah lemosheh misinai to be blackened (as opposed to the batim,
regarding which the Rambam’s view is that there is no such halachah lemosheh
misinai requirement to be blackened), they require also ibbud. The Biur
Halachah (s.v. vetzorich) elaborates that the Mogen Avrohom understands the
halachah lemosheh misinai requirement that the retzuos be black requires them
to be fabricated in a complete manner even as to the finish of their coloring;
and complete fabrication includes ibbud (tanning). He believes this to also be
the opinion of the Biur Hagra.
If the letter ‫ א‬was written in the shape of an X,
is it kosher?
The proper and customary form for writing the letter ‫ א‬is with the upper
yud attached to the middle of the right side of the central bar [as mentioned
in Mishnas Sofrim], and the lower yud attached from the upper left side of the
central bar [Shu”t Chasam Sofer Y”D 261].
If both of the yuds are attached from the same place on the central bar
(similar to the English letter X) its kashrus is a matter of discussion among
the Poskim. The Gidulei Hekdesh (15:8) writes regarding this shape that it is
a disgraceful shape. The Kol Rama”z and Mishnas Avrohom (23:1) write that
this does not have the form of an ‫ א‬and no child would read it as an ‫א‬. Their
opinion would seem to indicate that this is not kosher.
The Sefer HaAgur quoted by the Beis Yosef seems to indicate that this is
actually the proper form for writing the letter ‫א‬, and his opinion is discussed at
length in Meleches Shamayim (26:1 Binah §3).
The Shu”t Shevet Halevi (vol. 4, 139:3) cites the opinion of the Imrei Shefer
(5:4) and the Gidulei Hekdesh (ibid.) that bedieved such a form is kosher. He
relies upon the Meleches Shamayim (ibid.) who, while not clearly ruling in
favor of this shape, does not disqualify it or even discourage it. Therefore, he
concludes that when such a shape appears sufficiently like an ‫ א‬so that a child
successfully recognizes it as an ‫א‬, it is ungraceful but bedieved kosher.
This discussion is merely with regard to the position of the protrusion of
the yuds from the central bar of the ‫א‬. If the letter were written exactly in the
shape of an X, with only a straight line protruding from the central bar (not
shaped like a yud with a leg and a head), it is definitely invalid regardless of
whether a child can recognize it (Mishnah Berurah 32:18 §86, 32:25 §115).
Do chemicals applied to the leather of retzuos
need to be applied lishmah?
Do the sides of the retzuos need to be black
like the outer surface?
The Mishnah Berurah (§17) rules that the ibbud is required to be done
lishmah even bedieved. In olden times, the tanning process consisted of
salting, and then soaking in an acidic solution. For the past many generations,
we substitute a base solution of lime for the acidic solution. This serves both to
remove the hair and to preserve the leather from rotting. In recent years, leather
manufacturers utilize additional chemical substances to preserve and enhance
the leather. Which parts of the processing are considered to be “ibbud” and are
required to be performed lishmah?
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) writes, regarding the halachah lemosheh
misinai which demands that the retzuos be black, that this applies only to the
outside surface, but the inner surface may be of any color besides red, lest
people claim that it became red from the wearer’s blisters.
The Chazon Ish (O”C 6:11) discusses the opinion of the Mishnah Berurah
that even if some of the ibbud was done without intention of lishmah, as long
as the processing was unfinished and the remainder was done lishmah, it
suffices. The Chazon Ish mentions that some Rishonim are of the opinion that
salting the leather is sufficient for retzuos, and there is no need to soak the hide
in lime. Although we follow the stringent opinion and do not use such hides
for retzuos until they are soaked in lime, we are unable to assume that soaking
in the lime solution is integral enough to the ibbud process and suffices for
lishmah (in case the salting hadn’t been done lishmah). Thus, both the salting
and the soaking in lime must be done lishmah. The Chazon Ish mentions that
the modern chemical processing, which is unnecessary according to Halachah,
is not required to be done lishmah.
‫בס”ד‬
The Poskim discuss the halachah regarding the sides of the retzuos, which,
despite being visible, are neither the outer surface nor the inner surface. The
Keses Hasofer (23:2, and in Lishkas Hasofer §2) requires that they be blackened
and even believes that this is included in the halachah lemosheh misinai. On the
other hand, the Pri Megadim, cited in Mishnah Berurah §24, seems to believe
that this is unnecessary. He discusses a situation where the retzuos were
blackened without lishmah, and offers a solution to blacken the other side and
use the retzuah with that side outward. If the sides had needed to be black,
there would be no solution as even switched inside out, the sides remain in
the same position. [See Zichron Eliyahu 20:2 who adduces this.] The Chazon
Ish is quoted (in Orchos Rabeinu vol. 1 page 36) as having adduced from the
Tikkun Tefillin (page 41) similarly. The Tikkun Tefillin mentions that the leather
is blackened and then cut in strips for retzuos; the sides are only formed by the
cutting after the blackening is over, and no mention is made that they need to
be individually blackened. Teshuvos Vehanhagos (2:22) states that the Brisker
Rav was not careful that the sides of the retzuos be black.
3