Answers to this Week’s Riddles
(For the riddles, please see back page)
1) The Meiri (30b) answers: The Beraisa is not talking about one case, rather, it is talking about two different cases: If one teaches his son Torah then he doesn’t need to teach him a trade, as if one has Torah, he has kemech [substance]. Only one who doesn’t teach his son Torah, needs to teach his son a trade.
According to the Meiri, if one teaches his son Torah, he doesn’t need to teach him a trade.
The Chasam Sofer (Bava Basra 21) writes a similar thing, he says: The halachah is like R’ Nehoroi (Kiddushin 82a) who says, that a father only needs to teach his son Torah, however, if the son grows up and the father sees he isn’t having success with learning, then he should teach him a trade.
In Otzer Teshuvos HaGeonim they bring Takonas [enactments] from the Kehillah of Krakow which was written by the Beis Din in Krakow and signed by the Bach and various other Dayonim. One of the Takonas there is, that if a child reaches the age of fourteen and he isn’t seeing success in his Torah learning, then he should be taught a trade. (Otzer Pelois HaTorah)
2) R’ Tzadok HaKohen in his sefer Otzer HaMelech (Al HaRambam, Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:3) writes: The mitzvah of ושננתם לבניך is incumbent upon the body of the father, just like tefillin and the mitzvah of bris milah, however, a father can use a shliach to help carry out the mitzvah.
However, R’ Boruch Ber (Teshuvah end of Birchas Shmuel on Kiddushin) writes that the mitzvah of ושננתם לבניך is that the father ensures his son learns Torah, however, it isn’t incumbent upon the body of the father.
The Divrei Yatziv (cited in Shefa Kodesh, Inyonei Bris Milah, Parshas Vayetzei, and in Otzros Divrei Yatziv, Shabbos pg. 775) writes: I heard from HaGaon HaKadosh Minasvied (מנאסויד) and from chasidim who hung around by the Shinovah that they said over in his name, that in his opinion it is not good for the father himself to teach his son Torah. The reason being: A person is obligated to teach his son Torah, and the advantages of such a mitzvah are very great, and the learning has unbelievable power, and is a tremendous advantage for the child. However, because of this, the yetzer horah fights very hard to stop the father doing this mitzvah, and it may cause the father to start shouting at the child, and have a negative effect, therefore, its best to get a rebbe to do it instead, and on such a learning the yetzer horah will fight less.
3) The Shu”t Ginas Verodim (Orach Chaim, Klal 2, siman 28) writes: Hanging up a mezuzah is a segulah for protection, however, this is only if the mezuzah is hung up with intent to fulfill the mitzvah. Once it is hung up for the mitzvah, then one may think in his mind that as reward for the mitzvah of mezuzah Hashem should protect him, however, if one hangs it up for the sole purpose of protection, he doesn’t receive protection, and on the contrary, he puts himself in danger.
He writes: If one doesn’t have intent for the mitzvah, rather he does it like one uses an axe to chop wood with, and places the mezuzah on his house to guard the house, it offers no protection, rather, it serves like a knife in his eyes, and it won’t remove bad from his house.
This a very scary Ginas Verodim. A friend of mine was me’orah the aforementioned Ginas Verodim to me about two years ago at the beginning of the October 7th war. At the time many soldiers were taking accepting upon themselves to start wearing tzitzis. Although there is no doubt that many soldiers did it with the correct intentions, there were some who did it with the intention that the mitzvah of tzitzis should offer them special protection. My friend was me’orah that according to the Ginas Verodim they were acting wrongly, and on the contrary, they were putting themselves in more danger. A scary thought!
4) The Yesod Veshoresh HoAvodah (Sha’ar 11, Perek 6) writes: For Krias Shema of Yom Kippur, by Kol Nidrei and Shacharis, one should have shortened kavonah in the first pasuk of Shema, in order that he can say “Boruch Shem” aloud together with the tzibbur.
5) R’ Chaim Palagi in his sefer Kaf HaChaim (siman 14, ois 32) quotes a Sefer HaKoneh who says: “In Eretz Yisroel one should recite Krias Shema standing, and in Chutz La’aretz one may sit.”
The Sefer HaKoneh (Kavonas Krias Shema) writes:
א"ל רבי ק"ש מעומד או מיושב, א"ל בא"י יעמדו אבל בני בבל ישבו, א"ל אמאי כאן וכאן יחוד אחד להם, א"ל בארץ ישראל לא דמו לבני ח"ל, כשאתה מקלס ומייחד למלך בתוך ביתו צריך אתה לעמוד שכן המלך עומד ומשפיע ומברך את ביתו אבל כשאתה מייחדו חוץ מביתו צריך אתה ליישב שכן אין המלך עומד בביתו, ולא כאלה הרשעים העבריינים הקמים ביחוד בב"ה ומהש"י אינם יראים להעיד עדות שקר בעצמם שהדברים הנעשים מיושב ועושים אותם מעומד ואין להם ידיעה עליהם אמר הכתוב והכסיל בחושך הולך.
They said to him, “Rebbi, should Krias Shema be recited whilst standing or sitting?” He answered back, “In Eretz Yisroel it should be recited standing, however, in Bavel (Chutz La’aretz) it may be recited whilst sitting.” They then said to him, “Why? Surely in both places we are doing the same thing, announcing the Oneness of Hashem? He answered back: “Eretz Yisroel is not the same as Chutz La’aretz. When one praises the king in his own house one must stand as the king is there standing, however, when praising the king outside his house then one may sit, as the king is not standing there” ...
However, R’ Chaim Palagi writes: “This is not agreed upon by the poskim or the Kabbalists, and whether one is in Eretz Yisroel or in Chutz La’aretz, Kerias Shema should be recited in the same manner, and tzadikim sit down.”
6) The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 33) cites a machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 6:11) learns that even if one’s father is a rosha there is a mitzvah of Kibbud Av. However, the Tur (Yoreh Deah 240) argues and holds that if one’s father is a rosha there is no mitzvah, and until the father does teshuvah there is no mitzvah.
The Bach (Yoreh Deah 240) asks: How can there be a mitzvah when the father is a rosha? See inside for his answer.
R’ Yonasan Eibshitz in Yaares Devash (2:18) answers: Even if the father is a rosha, the son still needs to respect him due to maras ayin, as how will the onlookers know if the father is a rosha or not. According to this, it comes out that the obligation is not Kibbud Av on a de’O’rasia level, rather, it’s an obligation because of maras ayin.
The Shu”t Tzemach Yehudah (4:32) brings a beautiful peshat to explain the Rambam. He quotes the Medrash (Rus Rabbah 7:2) which says that Hakadosh Boruch Hu told Avraham Avinu that his father Terech would have a portion in Oilam HaBoh: ואתה תבוא א ל־אבתיך בשלום – “As for you, you shall go to your ancestors in peace” (Bereishis 15:15). What is the explanation in this Medrash?
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (105a) brings, that the merits of a father don’t help the son, however, the merits of son help the father. Therefore, if a son has merits, then even if his father was a rosha, he may still merit Gan Eden because of the merits of his son. For this reason, a son is obligated to respect his father who was a rosha, because in the end of the day he is going to end up in Gan Eden.
The Rambam holds, since in the future the father will be in Gan Eden, the son must respect him. However, the Tur holds, that as long as the father hasn’t done teshuvah, the son isn’t obligated to respect him.
