Parshas Maasei: Selling Meat During the Nine Days

Dear Halachaboy: I own a Kosher meat restaurant and while my clientele is mainly frum Jews, I do have plenty of non-frum customers. May I continue to sell meat products to them during the nine days? To Senior Steak Seller: As you mentioned during the nine days it is prohibited for Jews to eat meat. However, there is certainly no prohibition to sell meat to another person, and thus it is totally fine to sell meat to non-Jews. In regards to selling meat to fellow Jews I believe your question is more of Lifnei Iver question, then a nine days one. So in order to get a better understanding of the concept of Lifnei Iver I will digress and explain some of its rules. For the sake of enjoyment I would like to answer you question with a seemingly unrelated question: Can you set up a guy and a girl who you know won't keep Taharas HaMispacha? Or perhaps you can ask can a Rabbi of community perform a wedding on a couple who he knows won't keep Taharas HaMispacha? Back to our answer. Lifnei Iver, literally translated as "in front of the blind", is a biblical prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of someone who can not see. Our Rabbis told us this also applies to giving someone bad advice on purpose, and thus taking advantage of him. However, Lifnei Iver might also extend to facilitating someone to commit an Averah. The Gemara in Avodah Zara (6b) writes that if one passes a Nazer wine, or a Ben Noach some Aver Min HaChay he has violated the commandment of Lifnei Iver- he has facilitated someone elses sin. The Gemara, however, makes one quick clarification. One can only violate the prohibition of Lifnei Iver if the Naazer couldn't have gotten the wine himself (Tre Avrah D'Nara- you were on two seperate sides of the river), however, if the Naazer could have gotten the wine himself (Chad Avrah D'Nara- you were on the same side of the river), you just helped him that is not a violation of the Biblical Commandment of Lifnei Iver. The Rishonim due argue as to whether there is a Rabbanic prohibition of "Ma'Saya" (or facilitating) when there is no Biblical prohibition of Lifnei Iver. We generally assume that there does exist a Rabbinic prohibition of Ma'Saya. However, Rav Moshe writes that if one is helping not to facilitate his friend's crime but for his own personal benefit then the prohibition of Ma'Saya does not exist. Thus, while it is commendable to tell every Jew that comes to purchase meat that eating meat is prohibited during the nine days (with some exceptions: shabbas, siyum, etc), there is no prohibition on you if you choose to sell it to them. A. Lifnei Iver is not an issue because they can go somewhere else to buy meat. B. Ma'Saya is not an issue because you are doing it for your own profitable interest and not to facilitate his crime. In conclusion, for the same rationale one may set up a couple who won't keep all the Mitzvos and a Rav can perform a ceremony for them, provided they receive some financial compensation. (Perhaps one of the sources for paying a Shadchan).

Parshas Maatos: Loshon Hara if the Information is Public

Q: " Dear HalachaBoy, I just found out a friend of mine got arrested. Since it is being reported in the newspapers am I allowed to tell people?" A: Dear Friends in the Pound, Thank you for taking the time and writing to me, it is exciting to see people actually read what I write. In regards to your question I think the best way to answer, is to actual break your question into two separate questions. First, since the newspapers are reporting it the fact must exist that your friend did actually get arrested (newspapers only report things that they verify {or so we hope}). Thus, the first question we must deal with is the question of is it Loshon Hara to tell the truth? The Chofetz Chaim points out in his Sefer aptly called Chofetz Chaim that it is forbidden to speak disparagingly of one's friend even if the information is entirely truthful. That is the defintion of ashon Hara. If the information also contains any fabrication or falsehood that is called motzi shem ra (lit. putting out a bad name). Motzi Shem Ra is an even worse sin that Loshon Hara. Secondly, since the newspapers are reporting in it can be assumed that 3 people already know. The Gemara records a leniency that if 3 people already know the fact that you wish to convey, then your conveying it is not loshon hara. Would that apply here, and thus allowing me to tell others? With regard to the leniency stated by the Sages of the Talmud about speaking L"H to a group of 3 or more (Erchin 15b), this refers to something which is not absolutely derogatory, but rather something which could be taken one way or the other. Only for such ambiguous statements, about which one can only know what was meant if he actually heard how the information was said, does the leniency of "bifnei shlosha" (Heb. for "in front of three") apply. Many people misquote this leniency to allow any type of Loshon Hara as long as it is already public knowledge. Yet, clearly the gemara only allows you to say something that is ambiguous, and definitely not something negative. Thus it seems from this that even though the fact your friend got arrested is quoted in the newspapers, still you would not be allowed to tell other people. However, if you must retell this information at least try to construe it in an ambiguous way and leave it to the listener to interpret the facts. (i.e. "that candy bar looks good, I'm sure if Yankel was here he would get it" letting the listener try to figure out if "get" means to purchase or steal. As we have reached the Three Weeks we should all try a little harder to keep from speaking loshon hara. Unfortunately, in America everywhere you look there is loshon hara (tabloids, tv, newspapers) it has become a part of us. Let us try to work on this-- It's not easy, but any progress will surely be seen and rewarded by Hashem

Parshas Pinchas: Bris on Shabbas

What happens when a bris milah falls out on a fast day? As the HalachaTeam encourages those reading to ask questions, we will for sure answer this (and hopefully any other question thrown our way). In order to fully understand this questions the term fasts must be broken into 3 categories: 1. Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av. 2. The four minor fasts. 3. Any fast not on its set day (for example: Purim on Sunday, so Taanis Ester should be Shabbas, but can't fast on Shabbas so fast on Thursday). Further I am assuming the questioner is concerned about both the drinking of the wine at the bris (which is normally drunken by the Mohel) and the festive Seudah that follows. In regards to category 1 the Shulchan Aruch writes that the Seuda should be held at the conclusion of the fast. In other words have everyone reconvene and have a nice break-fast. In terms of the drinking of the wine, it is assumed you give it to child (under the age of chinuch) or even the baby himself to drink. Category 2 is the same as category 1 except for the fact that during the 4 minor fasts a nursing women is exempt for fasting. Thus, the Shulchan Aruch provides the option of giving the babies mother the wine to drink. The Rama rules against this custom, but for the Sefardim out there I figured I would mention it. Finally in regards to category 3. the Rema ruled that since this is not the official time of the fast, the baal bris and all of his guests may break the fast for the sake of the seudas milah. However, they are nonetheless obligated to make up for the fast on Friday. Some opinions, however, take a more stringent view and argue that when Chazal established Thursday as the altered date of the fast, Thursday is now its correct time and the taanis may not be pushed off for the sake of a milah. The seudah should then be celebrated after breaking the fast, as is usually done when a bris takes place on a fast day. At this point some of you might be tempted to ask, " What was the Rema thinking? Isn't it preferable to stay clear of dispute, and just put the seudah off until after the fast has concluded?" It is worthwhile to consider that bris milah transforms the day into a Yom Tov for the person who makes the bris. Yom Tov is a time for celebration and rejoicing, and in this light, delaying the seudah is not a simple matter. While many don't sing and dance at a Bris due to the pain felt by the child, we must all realize that the Bris is in a sense greater simcha then even a Bar Mitzva or Wedding. A young child is entering G-d's chosen nation. What greater Simcha is there? No such thing as Coincidence- but it happens to be that this weeks Parshas is Pinchas. What is the connection between Pinchas and Bris Milah? We mention his name at a Bris once and that is more than the name Moshe. Take a look.

Bishul Akum #6

The Nanny: A Great TV Show, but a Disaster in the Kitchen Some call her the maid, others the nanny, and a few even describe her as their mother. Yet, rarely do you hear non-jewish help in your house called the "Kitchen Korrupter" (I thought of that myself). She's non-jewish, she cooks her own food with no assistance from a Jew. People go crazy when the nanny feeds the kids pork, but shouldn't we be up in arms when she cooks them their regular homemade dinner? What is the leniency to allow a non-jewish maid to cook in a Jewish home? And why isn't that Bishul Akum? In general, one should not leave goyishe help at home alone, for one cannot be sure20that they won't prepare non-kosher food in the kitchen utensils. Tosofos brings the view of Rabbeinu Avrohom that the prohibition of bishul akum does not apply in the house of a Yid where intermarriage and non-kosher food are not problems. The halacha, however, follows the view of Rabbeinu Tam that Chazal did not distinguish between the domain of a Yid and the domain of a goy regarding bishul akum. Therefore what would come out of this is that if you have a maid and allow her to cook your children dinner from scratch, you might as well be serving them chicken and cheese (both are prohibitions from the rabbanan) However, some Rishonim mention that the entire prohibition of bishul akum was only enacted in instances where the goy has the free will to decide whether he would like to cook the food or not. In instances where the goy is a slave or a hired worker and does not entirely possess that free will, there is no prohibition. But this two is not accepted in normative halacha. But what about the pots? Do the pots that the nanny used to cook in become traif- and require kashering? The Rashba and the Rosh argue whether the Bishul Akum decree extends to utensils that touched hot food cooked by a non-Jew. The Rashba argues that we are not only forbidden to eat the food eaten by the non-Jew, but the utensils that touch hot food that a non-Jew cooked are also rendered not Kosher. The Shulchan Aruch cites both the view of the Rashba and the Rosh, but it presents the Rashba's strict view as the primary view. So be careful with the nanny and if a situation arises or has arose where goyishe household help cooked something in a Jewish house, a Rav should be consulted to determine if based on the situation there are any grounds for leniency.