Answers to this Week's Riddles

Answers to this Week's Riddles

(For the riddles, please see back page)

1. In this week's parsha we have the pasuk (Devarim 26:1): והיה בי תבוא אל הארץ אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך נחלה וירשתה וישבת בה - “And it shall be, when you come into the Land that Hashem your G-d gives you as an inheritance, and you possess it and dwell in it.”

From here we learn that there is a mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael [settling the Land of Israel], as explained by the Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh.

This raises a question: Must one prefer esrogim grown in Eretz Yisrael because of the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, or is there no such requirement?

The Shu"t Bikkurei Shlomah (siman 25) writes that one should indeed prefer esrogim of Eretz Yisrael over those from Chutz Laʼaretz.

What is the reason? The Bikkurei Shlomah explains based on the Chasam Sofer: The Chasam Sofer (Succah 36a) explains that the pasuk "You shall gather your grain" was said regarding Eretz Yisrael, where working the land itself is a mitzvah because of yishuv Eretz Yisrael — to bring forth its holy fruits. Boaz winnowed barley at night because it was a mitzvah. Just as one may not say, “I will not put on tefillin because I am learning Torah," so too one may not say, “I will not gather my grain because I am learning." Even other crafts that contribute to the settlement of the world are included in this mitzvah.

Thus, it emerges that by ensuring that people only use esrogim from Eretz Yisrael, we increase yishuv Eretz Yisrael — providing livelihood for hundreds of families who work the holy soil, guard it, and bring forth its sacred produce.

He adds a further novelty: Even if there were a rabbinic concern regarding esrogim of Eretz Yisrael, it would be permissible, for in matters of yishuv Eretz Yisrael Chazal did not enact prohibitions — as seen in Bava Kama 80b, where one may write a deed for the purchase of a house in Eretz Yisrael even on Shabbos (through a non-Jew), because of yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

The Bikkurei Shlomah adds another reason, based on derush for giving esrogim grown in Eretz Yisrael precedence: The Maharsha (Pesachim 8b) writes that only one who owns land fulfills the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel, because the essence of the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel is to rejoice in the mitzvos of the fruits of the Land — bikkurim and maaser sheini — and to gladden the poor, the convert, and the Levi through their consumption. One who has no land cannot fulfill this, and his ascent is not fully for the sake of Heaven. What comes out is, the main purpose of aliyah l'regel is to make the poor happy with fruits of the Land.

Therefore, by purchasing esrogim from Eretz Yisrael for Succos, we can generously gladden the poor — thereby fulfilling the very purpose of aliyah l’regel. One mitzvah leads to another.

The Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 648:29) writes: “Every Jew whose heart is touched by the fear of G-d should take only esrogim of Eretz Yisrael. How shall we not be ashamed and humiliated that in a mitzvah which we can fulfill with the fruit of our holy Land, we instead take from the lands of the nations? Woe to such shame, woe to such disgrace! Of this it is said: 'They despised the desirable Land.' One must be exceedingly careful in this matter.”

The Sdei Chemed (Vol. 4, Mareches Lamed, Klalim Klal Kama, sif 32, d.h. umotsasi etzli) quotes a letter he received from the Aruch HaShulchan: “It is proper for a Jew to prefer the fruit of our holy Land over the fruit of foreign lands. Where is the honor of Hashem? Where is the honor of the holy Torah, which in many verses praises Eretz Yisrael? Where is the honor of Moshe Rabbeinu, who pleaded, ‘Let me cross and see the good Land'? How different are our ways from those of our Sages — Rabbi Abba kissed the stones of Akko; Rabbi Chiya rolled in its dust, as it says, 'Your servants desired its stones.' Yet people roll in the dust of other lands, kiss their fruits, and cast aside the fruit and goodness of the holy Land as an unwanted vessel."

The Sdei Chemed also cites the Yisa Berachah: Even though esrogim from Chutz Laʼaretz may be more beautiful, one should use erogim of Eretz Yisrael. If they are not beautiful below, they are beautiful above.

Similarly, the Shu”t Divrei Yisrael (Weltz) brings testimony from Rav Frankel that from the day he reached maturity he made a berachah only on an esrog from Eretz Yisrael, even in years when they had no beauty or hiddur. The Chasam Sofer already said: “If they are not beautiful below, they will be beautiful above.” The Sfas Emes likewise ruled that it is a mitzvah to seek an esrog from Eretz Yisrael even if it is not as beautiful, provided it is halachically kosher (see Shu”t Nefesh Chayah, Orach Chaim, siman 2,4).

The Shu't Maaseh Ish (siman 4) writes that one should give precedence to an esrog from Eretz Yisrael. The Rosh and Tur (Shulchan Aruch 211:1) rule that the superiority of the shivas haminim overrides personal preference, because these fruits are the praise of Eretz Yisrael. Even the Rambam, who disagrees regarding eating, would agree that in mitzvos, the fruit of Eretz Yisrael is superior.

Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (Teshuvah 3) challenges this: If so, everything grown in Eretz Yisrael should always be blessed first — which we have never heard from any posek. On the contrary, fruit from the shivas haminim grown abroad are still considered superior when it comes to berachos over another fruit grown in Eretz Yisrael. The reason being: The praise of Eretz Yisrael is inherent in those species, regardless of where they grow. Other fruits have no halachic precedence unless one personally cherishes them.

He then continues that when it comes to eating we follow personal preference, however, when it comes to mitzvos, when there is a din of hiddur, we follow beauty.

Consequently, if an esrog from Chutz Laʼaretz is more beautiful it has precedence. (The sources for this riddle are from Madanay Asher, Gilyon #715)

1. In this week's parsha (Devarim 27:5) we have the pasuk: לא תניף עליהן ברזל - "You shall not lift iron upon them.” The pasuk is instructing us that when we build a Mizbeʼach no iron should be used.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 180) writes that the minhag is that when we recite Birchas HaMazon we cover over the knives that are on the table.

The Beis Yosef brings two reasons for this practice:

1. Because the table is compared to the Mizbeʼach, and regarding the Mizbe’ach it is written "You shall not lift iron upon them.” Therefore, people customarily remove (or cover over) the knife during Birchas HaMazon. (So writes the Rokeach, siman 332; Shibolei HaLeket, siman 155; and the Avudraham.)

The Torah Temimah (end of Parshas Yisro) raises a difficulty with this reason: If so, one should not place leaven or honey on the table, since regarding the Mizbe’ach it says: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה - “Any leaven or any honey you shall not offer as a fire-offering to Hashem."

He further asks: Why specifically during Birchas HaMazon? Surely the table resembles the Mizbe'ach even before Birchas HaMazon.

He then says it must be that the comparison of the table to the Mizbe'ach is only an allegorical hint.

1. Because once there was a person reciting Birchas HaMazon, and when he reached the berachah of Boneh Yerushalayim and remembered the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash he took a knife from the table and stabbed himself. Therefore, people customarily remove the knife before Birchas HaMazon. (So writes the Shibolei HaLeket. See also the Kaf HaChaim, who brings additional reasons for removing the knife from the table during Birchas HaMazon.)

Considering the above, there is now room to question what the din is regarding a plastic knife, and if a plastic knife also needs to be removed from the table.

The Shu't Beis Avi (Vol. 3, Even HaEzer, siman 145, ois 5) discusses this question and he writes that it depends on the two reasons brought by the Beis Yosef. According to the reason of "You shall not lift iron", it does not apply here, since the knife is not

made of iron; therefore, it would not need to be removed. But according to the second reason — lest one stab himself, as happened in that incident — indeed this concern applies here as well, and therefore one would need to remove it from the table during Birchas HaMazon.

R' Yitzchak Zilberstein shlita (Chashukei Chemed, Sanhedrin 76b) also discusses this and writes that regarding a knife made of plastic, since it is not made of iron, there is no need to remove it — the concern of "You shall not lift iron" does not apply. And even according to the second reason, although one can cut with it, nevertheless regarding a decree established because of an incident, we find in Shabbos 60b that Chazal only prohibited in a manner similar to the actual incident, as the Taz writes. Since the incident happened with a metal knife, there is no reason to stretch it to plastic as well.

1. Seemingly, the two reasons brought in the Beis Yosef apply equally to Birchas Me'ein Shalosh. The reason that the table resembles the Mizbeʼach applies, and the second reason — that someone once reached Boneh Yerushalayim in Birchas HaMazon, remembered the Churban, and stabbed himself — certainly applies to Me'ein Shalosh, since Yerushalayim is also mentioned there.

In Shu't Salmas Chaim (siman 184) R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt"l brings that he was uncertain about this.

He then concludes: It is possible that the decree to cover the knife applies only in accordance with the incident that occurred — which was during Birchas HaMazon.

He brings a proof for this principle: The Taz (Orach Chaim 180) questions the ruling that on Shabbos and Yom Tov one does not need to cover the knives. According to the reason of the incident — that someone stabbed himself when reaching Boneh Yerushalayim — there should be no difference between Shabbos and weekday. Why then is it not required on Shabbos? (The Beis Yosef and Levush indeed write that according to this reason, even on Shabbos and Yom Tov one should cover the knives.) The Taz answers that the incident occurred on a weekday, and decrees are only made in a manner similar to the incident. Therefore, on Shabbos there is no need to cover the knives.

If so, the same applies here: since the incident occurred during Birchas HaMazon and not during Birchas Meʼein Shalosh, one only needs to cover the knives during Birchas HaMazon.

(It is noteworthy that this explanation addresses only the second reason, but does not address the first reason. Perhaps R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld holds that the primary reason is the second one.)

However, the Eishel Avraham (Orach Chaim 180) writes that only during Birchas HaMazon where we mention: על שלחן זה שאכלנו עליו - "this table upon which we have eaten" must one be particular about this practice.

1. The halachah is that it is forbidden to interrupt with speech between putting on the arm-tefillin and the head-tefillin. The Mechaber (Orach Chaim 25:9) rules that if one did, he must recite on the head-tefillin the berachah of “al mitzvas tefillin.” The Rema rules that for us, who customarily recite two berachos even if one did not interrupt, one must now recite on the head tefillin both the berachah of “lehaniach” and also "al mitzvas.”

In Maseches Shabbos (4b) we find that if one throws an item from one domain to another, i.e. from a private domain to a public domain, once the item enters the airspace of the public domain we consider that the item has already landed, this principle is known as “keluta k’mi shehuncha” (“that which is caught in the airspace is considered as though it was already placed") and one is liable. The question is, can we apply this principle to tefillin as well and say that once the head-tefillin is in the airspace above one's head, it is considered as if it has already been placed down, and therefore, if one spoke it isn't considered an interruption?

The Shu”t Halachos Ketanos (Vol. 2, siman 42, cited in Be'er Heitev siman 25) was asked this very question.

The Biur Halachah (siman 25 sif 9) writes that in the sefer Artzos HaChaim he proves with clear proofs that as long as it was not tightened on the head, the mitzvah is not completed.

The Shu”t Beis Shaʼarim (Orach Chaim 24) offers three reasons for why keluta k’mi shehuncha does not apply to tefillin:

1. Keluta k'mi shehuncha applies only to domains (reshuyos), such as private and public domains. In a private domain, a person has ownership over the airspace above his property up to the sky. Therefore, the air above his courtyard or house belongs to the private domain, and if we say keluta, it is considered placed in the private domain. But regarding tefillin, we cannot say that because it is in the air corresponding to the

place of the tefillin, it is considered placed on the head. What connection does this air have to the head? Perhaps it is the air of the ceiling above, and not the air of the head at all.

1. Keluta k'mi shehuncha applies only where placement for a moment suffices – such as in acquisition or Shabbos — where momentary placement is enough. But tefillin, whose mitzvah is that they be on him all day, cannot be fulfilled by momentary placement. Therefore, keluta k’mi shehuncha does not apply.

2. A further reason mentioned by the questioner and agreed to by the Beis Sha'arim is that keluta k'mi shehuncha applies only where there is no strict requirement regarding the details of placement - only that it is placed. But where there is strictness in the manner of placement, as explained in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 27:9,11) regarding tefillin, keluta k’mi shehuncha does not apply.

In the haga'os Mishnas HaAmrami, Rabbi Menashe Klein zt”l writes an additional reason: According to the Tosfos Yeshonim (Shabbos 4b), keluta k’mi shehuncha is said only to be stringent, not to be lenient. But here, if we say keluta k’mi shehuncha, it would serve as a leniency — that he already fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin — therefore, we can't apply it here.

If one put on his arm-tefillin, and the head-tefillin was already in the air space above his head and he then interrupted with speech, is this considered an interruption?