Bais HaVaad on the Parsha, Parshas Ha’azinu Good Condition Excerpted and adapted from a shiur by Dayan Yehoshua Grunwald September 17, 2021 https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DEV81_010_Haazinu_Legal_Owner _Giving_and_Owning_Your_Daled_Minim.mp3 On the first two days of Sukkos, one must own the arba’ah minim in order to fulfill the mitzvah of taking them. Those who do not own their own arba’ah minim generally use someone else’s set via matanah al menas lehachzir (giving a gift on the condition that it is returned afterward). But it is not clear whether tenai kaful (a double condition, i.e., where both the “if” and “if not” possibilities are expressed), which is necessary for conditions in other areas of halacha, is required here. According to the Smag, one must make a tenai kaful when giving a matanah al menas lehachzir for arba’ah minim. The Mordechai disagrees and notes that Rishonim debate whether a tenai kaful is necessary for conditions outside of gittin and kidushin (such as for mamonos). The Mordechai states that the halacha follows the Rashbam that it is unnecessary for mamonos. The Bais Yosef (O.C. 658) cites this machlokes and rules that we follow the Mordechai with regard to arba’ah minim. Although the Bais Yosef elsewhere (E.H. 38) cites both opinions and does not rule definitively like the Rashbam, the case of esrog may be more lenient for a number of reasons. These include the fact that perhaps there is a clear umdena that one wants the tenai to be valid even without the tenai kaful (Tosafos Kidushin 6b); tenai kaful may be unnecessary for metaltelin (Nesivos Hamishpat C.M. 207); and that even if the tenai kaful is needed but not performed, the recipient will still own the arba’ah minim (just that the condition of al menas lehachzir is invalid and it will not revert back to the owner) (Remach). Some Acharonim are machmir that a tenai kaful should be added when borrowing arba’ah minim (Bikurei Yaakov; the Brisker Rav, cited in Mo’adim Uzmanim). However, the Kaf Hachaim rules that it is not needed, and it would seem that due to the considerations above, this is the basic halacha. Bais HaVaad on the Parsha, Parshas Vayeilech Child Benefit Excerpted and adapted from a shiur by Dayan Yitzhak Grossman https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DEV81_009_Vayeilech_Hakhel_Chil dren_and_the_Synagogue.mp3 Assemble the people: the men, the women, and the children, and your stranger in your cities, in order that they hear, and in order that they learn and fear Hashem, your G-d, and they will observe to do all the words of this Torah. Devarim 31:12 The Gemara (Chagigah 3a) explains that the only reason this pasuk says to bring children to hakhel is to provide reward for those that bring them. It would seem from this formulation that Chazal interpreted the reference to children to mean very young children who cannot understand the proceedings, which consisted of the king reading portions of Sefer Devarim. Since they will not understand, the only reason to bring them is to receive reward. The Maharal in Gur Aryeh notes that it is difficult to understand why the Torah would require the bringing of young children for this reason alone. He therefore holds that the mitzvah applies only to older children, who can understand, and he interprets the statement of Chazal differently. Most commentators (including the Maharsha, Ramban, and Or Hachaim), assume that Chazal do indeed apply the mitzvah to young children. The Ramban nevertheless concedes that he would have theoretically understood the pasuk to include only older children. Although the mitzvah of hakhel does not apply today, Tosafos comments that the custom to bring children to shul stems from this Gemara. The Or Zarua writes similarly and adds that bringing young children to shul instills in them yiras shamayim. R’ Menachem de Lengzano of Italy (quoted by the Shelah, Magein Avraham, and Mishnah Brurah) argues strongly against this practice. He writes that today, parents who bring young children to shul will not receive reward but be punished. He explains that children do not act appropriately in shul but are disruptive, so they must be kept at home. One may only bring older children who can sit quietly and participate in the davening. Bais HaVaad on the Parsha, Parshas Nitzavim Undo Excerpted and adapted from a shiur by Rav Moshe Zev Granek https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DEV81_008_Nitzavim_Come_Back_ The_Mitzvah_of_Teshuva.mp3 For this mitzvah that I command you today is not concealed from you and it is not far away. Devarim 30:11 According to many Rishonim, including the Ramban and Rabeinu Yonah, “this mitzvah” means the mitzvah to do teshuvah for one’s aveiros. In their view, the mitzvah includes the entire process of teshuvah: charatah (regret), azivas hacheit (ceasing to commit the sin), vidui (confession), and kabalah al he’asid (resolving not to do it again). The Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos Asei 73 and Hilchos Teshuvah 1:1) counts reciting vidui as a mitzvah but does not include the rest of the teshuvah process. The Meshech Chochmah (in Parshas Vayeilech) questions how the Ramban and Rabeinu Yonah can list teshuvah as a mitzvah, given that Chazal teach that teshuvah erases aveiros. If, for example, someone violated Shabbos intentionally, wouldn’t the prohibition to desecrate Shabbos obligate him to do teshuvah to remove the violation? Why the need for a special mitzvah to do teshuvah? The Meshech Chochmah suggests that this is the reason that the Rambam does not count teshuvah as a mitzvah—it is already included in every mitzvah and aveirah in the Torah. Only vidui (which the Rambam apparently holds wouldn’t otherwise be mandated) can be a separate mitzvah. How, then, to explain those Rishonim who do count teshuvah as a mitzvah? Perhaps they would argue that teshuvah’s power to erase aveiros exists only because teshuvah is a separate mitzvah. Bais HaVaad on the Parsha, Parshas Ki Savo Money Order Excerpted and adapted from a shiur by Rav Yaakov Meir Levi August 26, 2021 https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DEV81_007_Ki_Savo_Charity_Begi ns_at_Home-Tzedaka_Priorities.mp3 When you have finished giving all the tithes of your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give [them] to the levi, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that they may eat in your cities and be satisfied. Devarim 26:12 Chazal derive from this mitzvah of ma’aser ani and other psukim that everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of tzedakah. Although the absolute minimum one must give is a third of a shekel per year, he must give a sum commensurate with his earnings. If he does not have sufficient money for his own household, it takes precedence over others. There is a halachic hierarchy among tzedakah recipients. For example, relatives take precedence over others. If similar-degree relatives are in need of financial assistance, such as a brother and sister, women are usually given precedence, because it is more embarrassing for a woman to collect door-to-door than for a man. Precedence also depends upon the need. If two similar relatives require tzedakah, but one needs food and the other clothing, food takes precedence. But relatives take precedence over others even if the non-relative needs food and the relative only clothing. Aniyei ircha, the poor of one’s own city, come before outsiders. (One who has lived in a city for at least twelve months is considered a local for this purpose.) The poor of Eretz Yisrael take precedence over other outsiders, but not over aniyei ircha. And the poor of Yerushalayim are ahead of those of elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael if they lack similar things. Bais HaVaad on the Parsha, Parshas Ki Seitzei Half and Half Dressing Excerpted and adapted from a shiur by HaRav Yechiel Biberfeld August 19, 2021 https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DEV81_006_Ki_Seitzei_Dress_Like_ a_Mentsch_The_Prohibition_of_Lo_Yilbash-.mp3 A man’s attire shall not be on a woman, nor may a man wear a woman’s garment, because whoever does these [things] is an abomination to Hashem, your G-d. Devarim 22:5 According to the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 182), this mitzvah prohibits a woman from wearing a turban or a suit of armor. The Rama adds that even if only one article of the opposite gender’s clothing is worn, and the wearer’s gender is recognizable from the other garments, the prohibition applies. The Shach (ibid. 7), citing the Bach, writes that two criteria are necessary for the issur to apply: the garment must be made and worn for beauty, and one must be wearing it in order to appear to be of the opposite gender. Therefore, a man may wear a woman’s raincoat to shield himself from the rain or women’s sunglasses to protect his eyes from the sun. The Shach accepts this ruling in the case where the person is wearing only one garment designed for the opposite gender. The Chochmas Adam challenges the Bach’s leniency from the Gemara in Nazir (59a) that says women may not wear weapons or armor, as these are kli gever. These items are cleary worn for protection, so this Gemara appears to contradict the Bach’s assertion. We can answer based on R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe 4:75:3), who explains that weapons and armor are intrinsically considered kli gever regardless of the purpose for wearing them, but the status of other clothing depends upon the purpose for which one is wearing it: if for beauty, it is forbidden; if for protection, it is permitted.