Answers to this Week's Riddles

1) The Shevet HaLevi (11:278) was asked this question and he answered: All matters stated with ruach hakodesh and prophecy are eternal. Therefore, the principle of: חושך שבטו שונא בנו - “One who withholds his rod hates his son" remains in place even today. The Malbim explains that one who withholds the rod does so because of excessive pity - meaning he loves himself more than his son, for he cannot bear to see his child in momentary pain, even though it is for the child's benefit.

The Shevet HaLevi continues: That Chazal gave parameters for the above. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah) rules, one may not strike with harsh blows like an enemy, but only lightly — enough that the child feels it is for his benefit. When done in such a manner, it certainly applies for all generations. Chazal excluded only striking an older son, which is forbidden because of lifnei iver (a stumbling block, as the child may be tempted to hit his father back.)

The Medrash Rabbah (beginning of Shemos) says that Yishmael and Eisav went off the path because Avraham and Yitzchak fulfilled “One who withholds his rod hates his son" — they refrained from discipline. But Yaakov said, “I will discipline my children," and therefore merited that all his children were righteous.

The Shevet HaLevi concludes that normally the pasuk: חושך שבטו שונא בנו ואוהבו שחרו מוסר, is interpreted to mean that one who withholds the rod hates his son, whereas one who often hits him loves him. However, if that was the case the pasuk should say: חושך שבטו שונא בנו ואוהבו מבהו ורודהו בשבט - "One who withholds his rod hates his son, and one who loves him constantly hits him", however, it doesn't say this. Therefore, says the Shevet HaLevi, what the pasuk means is: One who withholds the rod entirely in his educational approach — hates his son, for children must know that receiving punishment is part of proper upbringing. But a loving father does not rely on the rod as his primary method. Rather, he uses it only rarely, and instead employs the straight path: Loving rebuke - words that come from the heart of a loving father, which surely enter the heart of a beloved son.

2) The Chida (Nachal Kedumim on the Parsha) asks why the Shulchan Aruch doesn't bring down such a mitzvah and he concludes with tzorich iyun.

The Shu”t Divrei Yatziv (Orach Chaim siman 274) also asks this question.

He then suggests: The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 62:13) writes by the berachah of שהשמחה במעונו, that we don't say it all twelve months nowadays since ערבה כל שמחה the level of simcha we have nowadays is diminished. The Divrei Yatziv suggests that the same thing applies to the mitzvah of a husband making his wife happy during Shonah Rishonah.

3) Rashi in this week's parsha on the pasuk - ושמח את אשתו writes: ישמח את אשתו ותרגומו ויחדי ית אתתיה, והמתרגם ויחדי עם אתתיה, טועה הוא, שאין זה תרגום של ושמח, אלא של ושמח – “One should make his wife happy, and the translation of the pasuk is 'he shall make her rejoice'. One who translates it as 'he shall rejoice with his wife' is making a mistake ..."

From Rashi it seems clear that there is no mitzvah for the chosan to personally be b'simcha.

The She'iltos D'Reb Achai (Chayei Sorah, Shelita 16) is in doubt if a chosan can make up the minyan for birchas chassanim if there are not ten people there to “be mesameach him”? The She'iltos then quotes R' Yitzchak in the name of R' Yochanon that “birchas chassanim requires ten people and the chosan may be one of them".

The Gilyonei HaShas brings two possible interpretations of the She'iltos: 1) The chosan is obligated to be b'simcha, just like others are obligated to be mesameach him. 2) The chosan is automatically in a state of simcha — but he not obligated to be.

The Gilyonei HaShas concludes: Since sheva berachos are compared to Yom Tov in many places, the chosan must be personally obligated in simcha — just like every Jew on Yom Tov.

We see that the Gilyonei HaShas holds that the chosan himself is obligated to be happy, however, perhaps this is only during the week of Shevah Berachos and not the entire Shonah Rishonah.

The Shu't Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (3:453) quotes in the name of the Brisker Rav that there are two distinct obligations: 1) A chiyuv simcha on the chosan himself — because he entered the state of marriage. 2) A chiyuv to make his wife happy — the mitzvah of ושמח את אשתו. However, like we said above, perhaps this is only during the week of Shevah Berachos and not the entire Shonah Rishonah.

4) R' Yosef Sorotskin shlita in his sefer Meged Yosef suggests the following: Chazal teach (Kiddushin 2b) that a man's search for his destined wife is compared to the search of a person for his lost object.

In the sugya of hashovas aveidah (returning lost objects) we find different types of signs: A clear sign, a non-clear sign, a Torah-level sign, and a rabbinic sign. These represent different levels of certainty that the one giving the signs is truly the owner.

Since we have already explained that a shidduch is compared to a lost object, and since in matters of shidduchim uncertainty causes anguish — many chassanim and kallah's suffer from doubts — we therefore bless the couple with “siman tov": that their union should be marked by a clear, unmistakable sign, a Torah-level certainty leaving no room for doubt that the chosan and kallah were truly destined for one another, that he — and no other - is the rightful “owner” of this lost object.

5) Rav Zalman Sorotzkin zt"l brings down an amazing story in his Oznayim LaTorah (Devarim 22:11): “Although this is one of the laws of the holy Torah and we are not meant to seek reasons for the prohibition of shaatnez, it is nevertheless interesting that in my youth I read in a book that when they built the electric train in Kiev, the train would not move at all on one particular street. The engineers examined the cable attached to the train and discovered that it was braided from wool and linen. Since they could not find any other explanation, they tried replacing it with a cable made of pure linen. Immediately the electric current passed through the iron wire braided inside it, and the train began to move. People were astonished by this phenomenon — clearly, the 'pairing' does not work well."

Interestingly, the Netziv already mentions this idea in Haʼamek Davar (Parshas Kedoshim): והוא מסתרי הטבע, וידועים לחכמי הטבע שהקושר חוט שזור של צמר ופשתים יחדיו על חוט הברזל של הטעלעגראף, מפסיק את המשכת הדיבור שנדבר ממרחק, והרי הוא משנה טבע הברזל וחוקי הטבע - "This belongs to the hidden laws of nature. It is known to scientists that one who ties a thread woven of wool and linen onto the iron wire of a telegraph disrupts the transmission of speech from afar. It changes the nature of the iron and the laws of nature."

I have heard that activists from Vaad LeMaʼan Tohar HaMachaneh in several cases when fighting their milchemes hakodesh have wrapped a thread of shaatnez around television satellite dishes in order to disable them. The homeowners could not understand why the dish had suddenly stopped working. In one incident in Yerushalayim, the homeowner called a technician from the Broadcasting Authority. The technician immediately recognized that the problem was caused by the shaatnez, removed the thread, and restored the dish to full operation.

6) To be able to answer this, I imagine some introduction is needed:

The Sefer Chassidim (232) brings a fascinating case involving Rav Saadia Gaon. The case involved a wealthy man who traveled a long distance with his pregnant wife and his slave. The man died and the slave presented himself as the wealthy man's son and was awarded the fortune by the local authorities. The wife gave birth, and when the child came of age he went to Rav Saadia Gaon to complain about what the slave had done. Rav Saadia Gaon exhumed the body of the father and removed one of the bones. He took blood samples from both the son and the slave and placed the bone first into the blood from the slave and then into the blood of the son. The bone absorbed the son's blood but not the slave's blood, thereby proving, in Rav Saadia's opinion, the identity of the true son, since the bone absorbing blood demonstrated genetic similarity.

The Eliyahu Rabbah (568) cites this story but poses a question based on an incident recorded in Bava Basra 58a. As we mentioned, the Gemara records that a couple had ten children, but on his deathbed the husband said that only one of his sons was truly his child. In order to determine who should inherit the estate, Rav Benaah devised an interesting plan. He instructed the boys to hit their father's grave, which would reveal the identity of the true child. All of the boys hit the grave except for one, and Rav Benaah awarded the estate to the boy who did not hit the grave.

The Rashbam explains that the decision was an example of “Shuda DeDayni” (loosely translated as a Solomonic decision), as the true son would not have the audacity to hit his father's grave.

The Eliyahu Rabbah wonders why Rav Benaah had to employ Shuda DeDayni if he could have used Rav Saadia Gaon's blood test in order to determine who the son was.

The Reshash (commenting on the Rashbam ad. loc) asserts that Rav Benaah did not want to administer this test since it would reveal that nine of the boys were mamzeirim. Rav Benaah's test merely revealed that one of the boys was a more refined person than his siblings, but did not necessarily prove the other siblings' illegitimacy. The Reshash bases his explanation on the Rambam and Bartenura's comments (d.h. Vekirvah) to Eiduyos 8:7 that mamzeirus should not be publicized. Rav Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 1:135) accepts this Reshash as normative halachah.