Answers to This Week’s Riddles (For riddles, see back page)
1) The Shu”t Maharshag (1:18) answers, the mitzvah of kibbud av v’eim is by definition that the parents provide money, and the children serve the parents, if the children need to provide the money, it isn’t the mitzvah of kibbud av v’eim. Consequently, if the son spends up to a fifth of his money on serving his parents it’s a nice thing for him to do, but it’s not kibbud av v’eim.
The Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah 149) says something very similar: Kibbud av v’eim is honoring the parents with their money, if children need to provide the money, it’s not considered kibbud [honoring]. If they have no money, there is an obligation to give them money due to the mitzvah of tzedokah, but not because of kibbud.
2) The Sefer Chasidim (800) and the Kneses HaGedolah (Yoreh De’ah 240, cited in hago’as R’ Akiva Eiger, Orach Chaim 219) writes: אדם שמתפלל על אביו אם הוא חולה לא יאמר תרפא אבא מארי או לאדוני אבא רפא כי שלמה אמר דוד אבי – “A person who davens for his father who is ill, should not say ‘heal, my revered father’, or ‘my master my father, please heal’, because we find that Shlomah said Dovid my father (without adding anything)”.
The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 257) also writes, that he saw in the sefer Mavar Yabok that if one is davening to Hashem for his father or rebbe, he shouldn’t mention “My master my Rebbe” or “My master my father”, as in front of Hashem, it is unfitting for anyone else to be called a Master. In Shabbos (56) we find that Uryah HaChiti was considered to have rebelled against the king, as he mentioned in front of Dovid, ‘my master Yoev’. If in front of an earthly king calling someone else a ‘master’ is a problem, how much more so, in front of the Ribbono Shel Olam who is the King of kings.
3) Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi) initially suggests that the answer to this question should depend upon another question. The Yad Malachi and Pri Yitzchok (48) discuss whether the person who gave the wine sins immediately (even if it is consumed later or not at all), or only when the nazir drinks it. Rav Tzvi Pesach posits that according to the former position, the nazir doesn’t transgress by drinking since the person who gave it to him already sinned regardless. According to the latter explanation, the drinking of the nazir causes the other person to have sinned retroactively, and the nazir himself therefore sins by doing so. However, he points out that even according to the first position, the nazir may transgress at the moment that he accepts the wine, and he concludes with no clear resolution to this question.
4) Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 1:358) rules that if the host’s intention is solely for the benefit of his guest, in the hopes of inspiring him to become more interested in Judaism, it is permissible to invite him even if he will drive to the meal. He explains that the prohibition against doing an action that will cause somebody to sin is only if one’s intention is to cause him harm, similar to placing a stumbling block in front of a blind person. Just as nobody would view a surgeon who operates on a person to save his life as wounding or damaging him, so too if the host’s intention is to help his guest spiritually, it would be permissible with two caveats. First, one may not command the guest to drive and should in fact make it clear that his driving causes the host pain. Second, there is a separate concern of publicly desecrating Hashem’s name if a guest drives up to his house on Shabbos, so he should insist that the guest park at a distance so that it will not be clear that he is specifically coming to visit the host.
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Shu”t Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 1:98-99) strongly disagrees and argues that if the guest lives at a distance that will cause him to drive, the invitation of the host is tantamount to commanding him to drive, and instead of educating him to observe Shabbos, he is teaching him to desecrate Shabbos. He further adds that if the guest lives so far away that it would be impossible for him to walk to the host’s house, inviting him for a Shabbos meal would transgress not only the prohibition against placing a stumbling block before the blind, but would be considered in the even more severe category of an inciter to sin (see Devorim 13:7-12). For all questions of practical halachah, a competent Rav should be consulted regarding each individual situation. (R’ Ozer Alport)
5) The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 244:1) rules that the mitzvah of honoring the elderly applies to those who are 70 or older, while the Arizal (Sha’ar HaMitzvos Parshas Kedoshim) maintains that it begins from the age of 60. The sefer Taharas Hamayim (Ma’areches Zayin 7) cites an opinion that if a person under the age of 60 has a full white beard, it is considered an indication that he is beloved to Hashem like the aged and one must rise out of respect in his presence, regardless of his level of Torah scholarship, although the Taharas Hamayim disagrees. (R’ Ozer Alport)
