Revach L'Neshama http://revach.net/ RSS feed for - Section: TARYAG MITZVOS Category:MINCHAS CHINUCH Copyright 2007, Revach L'Neshama en-US Revach L'Neshama Logo 144 31 http://revach.net/img/small_header.jpg http://revach.net/ info@revach.net Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:00:00 -0700 240 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3535 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3535 The Mizrachi asks why did Moshe Rabbeinu delay the Bris Milah of his son because of the concern that it was sakanas Nefashos on the road to Mitzrayim.  That which saving a life takes precedence over a Mitzvah only applies after the Torah was given because the Pasuk states "VaChai Bahem", you shall live with them. Prior to Matan Torah, Klal Yisrael had the status of a Ben Noach and a Ben Noach must keep his Mitzvos even at the expense of his life.

The Mizrachi answers that even though the Pasuk of "VaChai Bahem" does not apply prior to Matan Torah, however it can be learned out from logic that it is better to forgo one Mitzvah in so that you will have the opportunity to do many Mitzvos in the future than to do one Mitzvah and never have the opportunity to do Mitzvos in the future.  

The Minchas Chinuch has different approach.  He says that although a Ben Noach may not transgress one of the seven Mitzvos Bnei Noach even to save a life, however if he is forced to be oveir on a Mitzvah with the threat of his life he may do so. The difference is that when one is forced to violate a Mitzvah he is transgressing the Mitzvah under duress and it is not regarded as if he transgressed. However, if he transgressed willingly even though he is doing it to save his life it is regarded as a transgression.

]]>
Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:00:00 -0700
Pru U'Rivu - Children From A Different World http://revach.net/article.php?id=3417 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3417

The Shulchan Aruch states that a Ger who had a son and a daughter who became Geirim along with him, has fulfilled the Mitzvah of Pru Urivu, since while he was a non-Jew they are considered his children.  However the rule is  that if someone does a Mitzvah during a time that he was Patur from the Mitzvah he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah. If so,asks the Shaagas Aryeh in Sefer Turei Even, how can the children that he had while he was a non-Jew be a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Pru Urivu, if a non-Jew is not obligated in the Mitzvah of Pru Urivu? 

The Minchas Chinuch answers that Pru Urivu is an ongoing Mitzvah that is fulfilled as long as one has children. The Mitzvah of Pru Urivu isn’t the act of conceiving a child.  Conceiving a child is only a Hechsher Mitzvah (preparation for the Mitzvah). The Mitzvah is being fulfilled every second that the children are alive. Therefore if the children die one no longer is fulfilling the Mitzvah and is obligated to have more children. Therefore even though a Ger had the children while he was still a non-Jew and was Patur from the Mitzvah, since the children are still alive after he became a Ger he is fulfilling the Mitzvah while he is a Jew. 

]]>
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:00:00 -0800
http://revach.net/article.php?id=3381 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3381

The Mizrachi asks why Moshe Rabbeinu delayed the Bris Milah of his son because of the concern that it was a danger for the child. That which the sanctity of a life takes precedence over a Mitzvah only applies after the Torah was given because the Pasuksays  ‘and you shall live with [the Mitzvos]’ but prior to Matan Torah, Klal Yisrael has the status of a Ben Noach, and a Ben Noach must keep the Mitzvos that apply to him even at the expense of his life.

The Mizrachi answers that even though the Pasuk of ‘and you shall live with [the Mitzvos]’ does not apply prior to Matan Torah, however it can be learned out from a Sevarah that it is better to forgo one Mitzvah in so that you will have the opportunity to do many Mitzvos in the future, rather than to do one Mitzvah and never have the opportunity to do any Mitzvos in the future.

]]>
Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Parshas Bo: Minchas Chinuch - When You Become Bar Mitzva In Broad Daylight http://revach.net/article.php?id=3346 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3346

If a child turns thirteen years old on Rosh Chodesh Nisan and on the thirtieth day of Adar he witnesses the new moon may he testify together with another witness regarding the new moon? Although a Katan is not a valid witness, however if Bais Din accepts his testimony and makes that day into Rosh Chodesh it will turn out that he was a Gadol retroactively from the previous night and he was a Gadol at the time of the testimony. On the other hand maybe since at the time that he came to Bais Din he is still a Katan the Bais Din may not accept his testimony.

The Minchas Chinuch says that it is the choice of Bais Din to decide if they want to accept the testimony. They are not obligated to accept the testimony since he is still a Katan at the time that he comes to Bais Din, however if they choose to do so they may accept the testimony because upon the acceptance of the testimony he will be a Gadol retroactively from the previous night.

Nevertheless Bais Din only has the option of accepting the testimony if he saw the new moon after nightfall on the thirtieth day of Adar, but if he witnesses the new moon before nightfall on the twenty ninth day of Adar, they may not accept his testimony, since at the time that he saw the new moon he was a Katan. If a witness was not a Gadol at the time that he saw the testimony, he may not testify even though he is a Gadol at the time that he came to Bais Din. 

]]>
Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Bikurim And Exploration Of Milk And Honey http://revach.net/article.php?id=3299 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3299

Min ha'Torah the Mitzvah of Bikurim only applies in the lands of Eretz Yisra’el that flows with milk and honey. The Ramban brings the Sifri that the only five of the seven nations of Kna’an are lands that flow with milk and honey; the lands of Prizi and Girgashi do not flow with milk and honey. According one opinion in the Mishnah the lands in Ever ha’Yarden also do not flow with milk and honey. Consequently the Mitzvah of Bikurim does not apply to the entirety of Eretz Yisra’el.  

The Minchas Chinuch says although only lands that flow with milk and honey are Chayav in Bikurim and not all of Eretz Yisra’el flows with milk and honey, however it is possible that some lands outside of Eretz Yisra’el flow with milk and honey, and if they are captured at the time of Mashiach we will be Chayav to bring Bikurim from those lands Min ha'Torah.  Three of the lands that were promised by Avraham Avinu, Kini Kneizi and Ademoni were never captured by Klal Yisrael and will only be captured at the time of Mashiach.  Those lands may very well be lands that flow with milk and honey since they are within the boundaries of Eretz Yisra’el.

]]>
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch - When Left Is Right http://revach.net/article.php?id=3267 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3267 The Mishnah states that a right-handed person who writes on Shabbos with his left hand is Patur because a person who does a Melachah in an unconventional fashion is Patur since he is not doing the Melachah in the way that it was done in the Mishkan. What is the Halachah if a person writes a Sefer Torah or a Get with his left hand? Is the Sefer Torah Kosher?

The Rema says that the Sefer Torah or Get is Kosher. Even though he is Patur on Shabbos, that is because it was done unconventionally, not because it is not considered writing.  Therefore it is considered writing with respect to a Sefer Torah or a Get. However, the Bais Yosef disagrees and he says that if it was considered a writing for a Sefer Torah, one would be Chayav for writing in that fashion on Shabbos. The Minchas Chinuch answers for the Rema that maybe it is considered writing for a Sefer Torah.   Therefore if one wrote a Sefer Torah with his left hand on Shabbos he would be Chayav, since it is considered a writing for a Sefer Torah it is also considered a writing for Shabbos.  However if a person writes anything else with his left hand other, than a Sefer Torah on Shabbos, he would be Patur. 

]]>
Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Can We Build The Bais HaMikdash Today? http://revach.net/article.php?id=3237 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3237

If we were given the go ahead by the ruling authorities is it possible to build the Bais HaMikdash nowadays? The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvas Binyan Bais HABechirah) says that apparently it would be permissible as the Midrash states (Bereishis Rabah 4:10) that in the days of R. Yehoshuah Ben Chanayah they were given permission to build the Bais HaMikdash and they even started building it [but it was not completed].  The Sefer Kapos Temarim states (Meseches Sucah 34 B) that R. Yechiel who was one of the Ba’alei Tosafos wanted to go to Yerushalayim to bring Korbanos.

Moreover the Yerushalmi states that the Bais HaMikdash will be rebuilt prior to the arrival of Mashiach; consequently it must be permissible to build the Bais HaMikdash nowadays because otherwise how will it be rebuilt before Mashiach comes?

]]>
Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Equal Rights For The Daughter Of A Levi http://revach.net/article.php?id=3220 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3220

It is a Mitzvah Min ha'Torah to give the Ma’aser Rishon to a Levi. Is it permitted to give the Ma’aser to a Bas Levi? The Rambam implies that it is permitted (Hilchos Ma’aser 1:1) and the Minchas Chinuch says that it may be permitted to even give the Ma’aser to a Bas Levi who is married to a Yisrael or to her husband, just as it is permitted to give certain Matanos Kehuanh (i.e. Zeroa, Lechayim and Keivah) to a Yisrael who is married to a Bas Kohen.

However Ma’aser may not be given to a Kohen who was born from a divorcee because not only is he a Chalal and is Pasul for Kehunah, but he is not even regarded as a Levi either. 

]]>
Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Bikurim After Chanuka? http://revach.net/article.php?id=3200 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3200 The Mishna states that Bikurim, is brought only until Chanukah. Tosfos holds that Bikurim may not be brought at all after Chanuka even fruit that was picked before Chanukah. However the Rambam and Ra'avad hold that fruit that was picked after Chanukah may not be brought as Bikurim because the fruit that is picked so late in the season tends to be inferior and only top grade produce may be brought as Bikurim. However the produce that was picked before Chanukah may be brought as Bikurim even after Chanukah.

The Mishnah states that women are also obligated in the Mitzvah of bringing Bikurim. According to Tosfos who holds that Bikurim may not be brought after Chanukah, the Mitzvah of Bikurim is a Mitzvas Aseh SheHaZman Grama, why are woman obligated in this Mitzvah? The Minchas Chinuch answers that the Turei Even holds that if the same Mitzvah applies again after the time elapses it is not regarded as a Mitzvas Aseh SheHaZman Grama.  Since the Mitzvah of Bikurim will apply again starting from Shavuos of the following year it is not regarded as a Mitzvas Aseh SheHaZman Grama. Only Mitzvos like Shofar and Succah are considered time bound since when Rosh ha'Shanah and Succos are over the Mitzvah is void and next Rosh ha'Shanah and Succos is a new Mitzvah and it is the not the same Mitzvah. 

]]>
Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:00:00 -0800
A Goy Needs A Unanimous Decision http://revach.net/article.php?id=3125 http://revach.net/article.php?id=3125

The Minchas Chinuch says in Parshas Yisro that the Din that we follow the majority or Rov, is one of the Taryag Mitzvos and it applies only to a Yisroel and not to a non-Jew.  When a Jewish person is brought to Din the Torah teaches that we follow the majority, if the majority of the judges find him guilty he is punished even if a significant minority of the judges find him innocent. The Rishonim teach us that a Rov is a regarded as a Safek, however it is a Geze’iras ha’Kasuv that even though it is a Safek we follow the dictates of the Rov.

Therefore, although a non-Jew is put to death for transgressing one of the seven Mitzvos Bnei Noach he is only put to death if the judges unanimously find him guilty. If it is a split decision he is not put to death because it is regarded as a Safek, and the Din of following the dictates of a Rov doesn’t apply to a no-Jew.

]]>
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Parshas Shoftim: A Jewish Queen, An Heiress To The Throne? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2728 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2728

The Rambam in Hilchos Milachim 1:5 paskens that you may not appoint a women to be Queen. This is based on a Sifri that says the pasuk (Devarim 17:15) says "Melech" and not "Malka". The Minchas Chinuch suggests that maybe this exclusion of a women Queen is only by appointment. If her father was King and she is an only child can she be Queen through inheritance? He brings a similar concept from the Noda BiYehuda (CM 1), who says that although you cannot apppoint the son of a Giyores to be King, nevertheless if the King marries a Giyores, his son can inherit the throne since he is not appointed King but rather by inheriting his father. He proves this from Rechavam the son and successor of Shlomo HaMelech whose mother Na'ama was a Giyores from Amon.

Although still in doubt, the Minchas Chinuch says that she might be disqualified because the Pasuk says "Hu U'Banav", the king and his sons. This suggests that only his son's inherits the throne and not his daughters. In any event says the Minchas Chinuch, if the King has a grandson from his daughter, this grandson may definitely inherit the throne through his mother.

]]>
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Parshas Shoftim: Milchemes Mitzva - Is It War Or Is It Peace? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2714 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2714

"Ki Sikrav El Ir L'Hilachem Aleha V'Karasa Eileha L'Shalom" (Devarim 20:10).  The call of peace.  Mitzva 527 listed by the Chinuch is to offer peace to a city before attacking.  To accept peace the enemy must agree to be subservient to Am Yisroel and to pay taxes.  The Chinuch says that this Mitzva is given because the trait of mercy, is becoming of our Holy Nation.  The taxes and subservience are productive rather than the destruction caused if they don't agree to the terms.  

The Minchas Chinuch says that the opinion of Rashi (in Chumash), Tosfos (Gittin 46a) and the Raavad (Milachim 6:5) is that peace is only offered by a Milchemes HaReshus, a non obilgatory war such as those waged by Dovid to increase the territory of Eretz Yisroel.  However a Milchemes Mitzva, the war against the 7 nations when Bnei Yisroel first entered Eretz Yisroel, has no such provision, and peace is not an option.  With regard to the letters that Yehoshua sent to the nations of Eretz Yisroel offering peace, the Raavad says that these were only valid before the Bnei Yisroel crossed the Yarden.  Once they came into Eretz Yisroel, according to these Rishonim, peace was not an option.  

The Rambam and the Ramban disagree.  They hold that the Mitzva of offerring peace is even by Milchemes Mitzva.  The difference between the peace offering in these two kinds of war is that by Milchemes HaReshus it is enough if the enemy agrees to pay taxes and be subservient.  However when waging Milchemes Mitzva on the 7 nations and Amalek, in order to get peace they need to agree to keep the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach. 

]]>
Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Not Hitting Parents: What About A Well Deserved Smack? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2453 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2453 If the child is a Shaliach of Bais Din and it is ruled by Bais Din that the parent needs to be hit for whatever reason, the child may not carry out this psak Bais Din and someone else should do it.  What if the parent is halachicly considered a Rasha (See Not Hitting Parents:  Hitting a Parent Who Is a Rasha).  In that case although it is still assur to hit the parent there is no Chiyuv Misa.  Would the combined facts that it is a Mitzva to hit in this case and that the parent is a rasha enable the son to carry out his role for Bais Din?

The Minchas Chinuch says that this is a machlokes Rishonim.  The Rif, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch all say that even in this case the son may not hit the parent.  However Tosfos in Yevamos 22b says that in this case it would be permissible for the child to hit the parent.

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not be completely accurate.
   

]]>
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Not Hitting Parents: What If The Parent Is On Death Row? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2452 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2452 Although if a child hits their parent who is Rasha the child is exempt from death (See Not Hitting Parents:Hitting a Parent Who Is a Rasha) if the parent does tshuva the child is Chayav Misa even though Bais Din will still kill the parent.  When someone is Chayav Misa, Bais Din does not exempt him from death if he does tshuva.  However if he does tshuva the person is no longer considered a Rasha and therefore the son who hits that parent will be Chayav Misa.  

However if a person other than the child hits someone who is set to be killed in Bais Din, he is patur from the aveira of hitting another Jew even if that person does tshuva.  The reason is that issur of hitting another Jew only applies to someone who is worthy to live and not someone who is Chayav Misa.

The Minchas Chinuch asks, since the issur of hitting a parent is derived from the same pasuk as hitting another Jew (Arba’im Yakenu Loi Yoisif Devarim 25:3), how is it possible that for hitting another Jew who is on death row and has done tshuva you are patur but for a parent in the same situation you are Chayav?  The Minchas Chinuch leaves this question unresolved.

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not be completely accurate. 

]]>
Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Not Hitting Parents: Hitting a Parent Who Is a Rasha http://revach.net/article.php?id=2451 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2451 A person is only Chayav Misas Chenek (death penalty, strangulation) for hitting a parent if the parent is “Oseh Maaseh Amcha”, if they act in the Jewish way.  If the parent is a Rasha, the gemara in Sanhedrin (85a) says, the child is patur for hitting.  It is still assur but there is no capital punishment.

What constitutes a Rasha in order to exempt the child from Misa?  The Minchas Chinuch says that Rashi in Sanhedrin says it includes any aveira that is punishable by death.  In Yevamos (22b) Rashi says that if the parent was involved in an illicit relationship it is considered “Eino Oseh Maasei Amcha”.  The Minchas Chinuch says that this can similarly be defined as violating and aveira requiring the death penalty.  However says the Minchas Chinuch, Rashi in Bava Metzia (62a) says that someone involved in the issur of Ribis (loans with interest) is also considered “Eino Oseh Maasei Amcha”, so it is unclear what level is needed to exempt the child from death.   

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not be completely accurate. 

]]>
Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Not Hitting Parents: Can A Doctor Perform A Medical Procedure On His Parent? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2447 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2447 If a person inflicts a wound on one of his parents that causes blood he is Chayav Chenek (death by strangulation).  If someone is a doctor and the parent needs a procedure done, although the child would be Patur for shedding blood, nevertheless the Shulchan Aruch says that it should not be done unless there is no one else to perform this procedure and the parent is in pain.

The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzva 48) says that there might be a heter for the child to perform the procedure.  He says that it seems from the Rambam that if a parent is Mochel and grants full permission for the son to inflict a wound, it would be permissible.  The Rambam (Sanhedrin 26:6) says that Mechila does not help after the fact so the Minchas Chinuch deduces that if they are mochel before any action is taken the Mechila would be effective.

The Shulchan Aruch and all the poskim that forbid a child to operate on a parent are either talking about a case where the parent is unaware and has not given consent or in a case where consent was given but we are concerned that the child will inflict a greater then necessary wound which the parent did not consent to.  If the parent says it would be okay no matter the damaged done, warranted or unwarranted by the situation it could be Mutar.

The Minchas Chinuch says this without proof only from logic.  In contrast to the opinion of the Minchas Chinuch, the footnote on the bottom (Machon Yerushalayim edition) says that the She’iltos and the Rivash both hold that a parent can be Mochel on their honor but not on being cursed or bruised by their children.

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not be completely accurate.  

]]>
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Piru U'Rivu: Women Love Having Children, But Are They Obligated To Do So? http://revach.net/article.php?id=2424 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2424 Although Piru U’Rivu is not a Mitzvas Aseh SheHaZman Grama, a time bound mitzva, the gemara and the Rishonim pasken that women are patur. The reason is because the Torah says “U’Milu Es Ha’Aretz V’Kivshua”, fill the land and conquer.  “Conquering” is a man’s domain and not a women’s.  

What about an Eved Kenani?  Because an Eved is Chayav only in mitzvos that women are Chayav, theoretically they should be Patur as well.  This is the opinion of Tosfos in Gittin (41b “Lo Sohu”).  However says the Minchas Chinuch, Tosfos Chagiga (2b “Lo Sohu”) hold that Avodim are Chayav.  How could this be if women are not Chayav, asks the Minchas Chinuch?  He answers that the Mishneh L’Melech (Milachim 10:7) says that Avodim are only patur from things that women are Patur because they are Mitzvos Aseh SheHaZman Grama.  However since Piru U’Rivu is not Zman Grama, even though women are Patur because the Pasuk excludes them, this pasuk is not carried over to Avodim and they are not exempt.  Similarly the Pnei Yehoshua and the Turei Even say that women are patur because they are not conquerors.  Male slaves are conquerors and therefore are Chayav in Piru U’Rivu.

It should be noted says the Minchas Chinuch, that although women are patur from Piru U’Rivu and so are slaves according to some Rishonim, nevertheless some hold that they still have a mitzva to have children because of the Pasuk in Yeshaya (45:18) that says Lo Sohu Bara'ah Lasheves Yitzara”, Hashem did not make the world to be deserted.  He created it to be inhabited.

If you enjoyed this article please email it to your friends and family and be our partner in Harbotzas HaTorah.  Please help spread the word about www.revach.net

]]>
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Parshas Korach: The Advantages of Marrying A Bas Levi http://revach.net/article.php?id=2394 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2394 It is a Mitzvah Min ha'Torah to give the Ma’aser Rishon to a Levi. Is it permitted to give the Ma’aser to a Bas Levi? The Rambam implies that it is permitted (Hilchos Ma’aser 1:1) and the Minchas Chinuch says that it may be permitted to be give the Ma’aser to a Bas Levi who is married to a Yisroel or even to her husband just as it is permitted to give certain Matanos Kehuna (i.e. Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keivah) to a Yisroel who is married to a Bas Kohen.

If you enjoyed this article please email it to your friends and family and be our partner in Harbotzas HaTorah.  Please help spread the word about www.Revach.net

]]>
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:00:00 -0700
http://revach.net/article.php?id=2381 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2381

The Bais Yosef and the Rema both hold (EH 1) that if you father Mamzeirim (Illegitimate children), they are considered valid children for the mitzva of Piru U’Rivu.  The Minchas Chinuch [8] says that this applies to both Mamzeirim who were born from valid marriages, such as a Ger who marries a Mamzeres, as well as Mamzeirim who were born from an illicit relationship.

The Minchas Chinuch asks, how can you be Mikayem your Mitzva of Piru U’Rivu by fathering children through an illicit relationship since it is a Mitzva Haba B’Aveira?  He answers that a mitzva is disqualified only if the action you take in performing the aveira is the Mitzva itself.  For example, the Shaar HaMelech (Hilchos Lulav 8:5) says that when you shake a stolen Esrog, the actual shaking is both a mitzva and an aveira of holding on to stolen property without returning it.

However in the case of Mamzeirim, the relationship with the women is not the mitzva, it is only Hechsher Mitzva, the preparation for the mitzva.  The Kiyum HaMitzva is the children themselves which come at a later time than the aveira.  Therefore Mitzva Haba B’Aveira does not invalidate children born from this aveira.

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not be completely accurate. 

Share this with your friends and be a partner with www.revach.net in Harbotzas haTorah.

]]>
Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:00:00 -0700
http://revach.net/article.php?id=2375 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2375 To fulfill the Mitzva of Piru U’Rivu a man must have both a son and a daughter.  The Shulchan Aruch paskens (EH 1:5) that these two children must be able to have children of their own.  If they cannot have children then they are not counted towards the man’s Chiyuv of Piru U’Rivu.  If one has fulfilled his mitzva he has no Chiyuv of Piru U’Rivu to actively pursue having more children.

If your child is still a Katan and has not reached child bearing age you are still considered to have fulfilled your Mitzva according to the Rema (1:6).  However the Minchas Chinuch points out that when a boy reaches Bar Mitzva he is assumed to have reached puberty (Shtei Sa’aros).  However if it is revealed that he doesn’t have the required two hairs, it is then a Safek if he had them and they subsequently fell out or he never got them. Therefore he is safek “Sris” that cannot bear children.  In this case the father would be once again required to actively pursue the mitzva of Piru U’Rivu.

The above is taken from the Minchas Chinuch and is not in anyway P’sak Halacha.  Furthermore it is the author’s understanding of the Minchas Chinuch and may not being completely accurate. 

]]>
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Minchas Chinuch: Parshas Behar - Skimming Off The Top, The Small Time Swindler http://revach.net/article.php?id=2238 http://revach.net/article.php?id=2238 It is forbidden to be Me’aneh (swindle) another Jew in a transaction. If one is swindled less than a sixth nothing the excess amount doesn’t have to be returned, exactly one sixth the excess amount must be returned, more than a sixth the transaction is void. The Rosh questions whether it is permitted l’Chatchila to overcharge or underpay an amount less than a sixth. Does the principle of Chatzi Shiur (a partial Shiur) Asur Min ha'Torah apply and it would be forbidden, or since it is normal not to charge or pay a precise amount when doing business there is no prohibition at all to pay or charge a little bit less or more than the going price.

The Chinuch is of the opinion that it is not prohibited but the Ramban Al ha’Torah disagrees. The Minchas Chinuch says that he infers from the Rambam that he agrees with the Chinuch that it is not prohibited. The Rambam says that there is no Malkus for Ona’ah because there is a monetary obligation to pay back the money.  If the prohibition applies even by less than a sixth, since there is no monetary obligation there should be a Chiyuv Malkus. Consequently the Rambam must hold that there is no prohibition for less than a sixth.

]]>
Fri, 16 May 2008 03:00:00 -0700
Minchas Chinuch: Why Couldn't We Make Another Aron? http://revach.net/article.php?id=1932 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1932
The Gemara says (Yuma 21b) that there were five items missing from the second Bais HaMikdash; the Aron Luchos and Keruvim (counts for one item), the Aish (on the Mizbei'ach), Shechinah, Ruach HaKodesh and Urim v'Tumim. Yoshiyahu HaMelech hid the Aron together with the Luchos and Keruvim toward the end of the first Bais HaMikdash so that it wouldn't be captured by Nevuchadnetzar.

From that time on we never had them again. The Luchos obviously were irreplaceable and therefore they were unable to make them for the second Bais HaMikdash but why didn't Ezra and Nechemia make a new Aron for the second Bais HaMikdash? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvas Binyan Bais ha'Bechirah answers that the purpose of the Aron was only for the Luchos and when there is no Luchos there is no reason to make an Aron at all. Even though according to R. Meir the Sefer Torah was placed in the Aron along with the Luchos however the principle purpose of the Aron was for the Luchos and therefore when there is no Luchos they did not have an Aron at all.

]]>
Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Why Was the Shemen HaMishcha Discontinued? http://revach.net/article.php?id=1863 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1863

The Rambam says that the only Shemen HaMishcha ever made was the one that was made by Moshe Rabbeinu. The Shemen HaMishcha that was made by Moshe Rabbeinu was hidden by Yoshiyahu HaMelech toward the end of the first Bais HaMikdash and it remains hidden until today. None of the Kohanim Gedolim from that time on were anointed with the Shemen HaMishcha.

The Minchas Chinuch asks that since the Mitzvah of making the Shemen HaMishcha is a Mitzvah L'Doros (for all generations) and not a Mitzvah L'Shaah (for a specific time) why wasn't new Shemen HaMishcha made during the time of the second Bais HaMikdash for the purpose of anointing the Kohanim Gedolim?

They Minchas Chinuch answers that the Mitzvah of anointing the Shemen HaMishcha on the Kings and Kohanim Gedolim is a Mitzvah L'Doros, however the Mitzvah to make the Shemen HaMishcha applies only to Moshe Rabbeinu not to the rest of Klal Yisrael. Hashem Yisborach commanded Moshe Rabbeinu to make Shemen HaMishcha that will last forever. Therefore once the Shemen HaMishcha was hidden Moshe Rabbeinu was not around to make new Shemen HaMishcha.

]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Melachos Shabbos - Plowing & Planting In The Midbar? http://revach.net/article.php?id=1780 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1780

The 39 Melachos of Shabbos are learned out from the Mishkan. How was there plowing and planting for the Mishkan? Klal Yisrael was in the Midbar and nothing grows in the Midbar! The Minchas Chinuch says that Tosfos says (Chulin 88b) that they the sand in the desert miraculously became fertile for Klal Yisrael and they plowed and planted the sand in the desert. Alternatively we can says that nothing was planted in the desert, however plowing and planting are Melachos on Shabbos because they needed to plow and plant the plants that were used for the dyes in the Mishkan. Even though these plants were planted in Mitzrayim and brought with them into the Midbar since these Melachos were needed for the Mishkan they are regarded as Melachos for Shabbos.

The Eglei Tal says that according to R. Hai Gaon the Melachos of Shabbos are not only learned out from the construction of the Mishkan, they are also learned out from the Korbanos that were brought in the Mishkan. Although they didn't plow and plant in the desert for purpose of the construction of the Mishkan however they needed to plow and plant for the Menachos and the Lechem ha'Panim that were brought in the Mishkan. Since plowing and planting were needed for the Menachos and the Lechem ha'Panim they are regarding as Melachos for Shabbos.

]]>
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Bal TiAcher For Korban Pesach? http://revach.net/article.php?id=1692 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1692 The Gemara says (Rosh Hashana 5A)that a person who pledges to bring a korban must bring it within the time frame of three Regalim and if he fails to do so he transgresses the prohibition of Bal TiAcher (do not delay). The Gemara says that the time frame of three Regalim does not apply to a korban Pesach because it must be brought on a specific date and if it is delayed after that date it could no longer be brought.

Rashi and Tosafos conclude from that Gemara that with regards to a korban Pesach if it is not brought on the fourteenth of Nossan you would immediately transgress the prohibition of בל תאחר even though three Regalim has not yet passed. However the Rambam apparently is of the opinion that the prohibition of Bal TiAcher does not apply to the korban Pesach at all. The Rambam does not list the korban Pesach among the items that the prohibition of Bal TiAcher applies to.

The Turei Even explains that the Rambam is of the opinion that Bal TiAcher only applies to something that it is possible to be made up. The prohibition of Bal TiAcher implies that one should not push off the Mitzvah of bringing the Korban, instead he should bring the korban immediately It is impossible to push off the Korban Pesach since it must be brought on the fourteenth of Nissan and can't be made up, consequently the prohibition of Bal TiAcher does not apply.

]]>
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Chopping Off The Donkey's Head Is Nothing To Be Proud Of http://revach.net/article.php?id=1653 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1653

There is a mitzva to redeem a first born male donkey with a lamb which is then given to the Kohen. If you do not redeem the donkey then you must chop off its head (Arifa). Although the mitzvah of arifa is a mitzvas aseh, no beracha is made upon performance of this mitzvah. The reason is, this mitzvah is a secondary mitzvah. It is not a preferred mitzvah. It is preferable to redeem the first donkey with a lamb rather than to break the neck of the donkey. Therefore a beracha would be made upon the redemption of the donkey but not on the arifa.

The same idea is found also with regards to the mitzvah of yibum (to marry a deceased brother's wife if he died without children). Even though chalitza (act that is performed if the surviving brother refuses to marry his deceased brother's wife) is a mitzvas aseh no beracha is made upon the performance of this mitzvah. Chalitza isn't a preferred mitzvah, it is preferable to perform yibum rather than the chalitza. Therefore a beracha would be recited upon the performance of yibum but not on the chalitza.

]]>
Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800
Minchas Chinuch: Can a Goy Murder Someone Under The Threat of Death? http://revach.net/article.php?id=1619 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1619

Included in the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach are the three capital Aveiros of murder, immorality and idolatry. Even though a Jew must give up his life rather than transgress any one of these Aveiros, however a non-Jew is not obligated to give up his life because a non- Jew is not obligated in the Mitzvah of Kidush Hashem. Giving up one's life rather than committing one of these Aveiros is a separate Mitzvah of Kidush Hashem and not part and parcel of theses specific aveiros and this Mitzvah doesn't apply to a non-Jew.

However, murder is an exception and even a non-Jew is obligated to give up his life rather than commit murder because there is a Sevarah that prohibit murder under duress.  The sevara is, ‘Who says your blood is more red than his?" Murdering another person even under the threat of death is considered murder. Therefore it applies equally to Jews and non-Jews alike who are both prohibited from murder.

]]>
Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800
The Rambam: A Bris Milah For Yishmaelim? - Shaagas Aryeh & Minchas Chinuch http://revach.net/article.php?id=1593 http://revach.net/article.php?id=1593

According to the Rambam all descendants of Ketura are obligated in the mitzvah of Bris Mila while Rashi holds only the actual children of Ketura were obligated in Bris Mila whereas the subsequent generations descending from Ketura are not obligated. The Rambam says that although only the descendants of Ketura are obligated in Bris Mila and not the descendants of Yishmael, however nowadays even the descendants of Yishmael are obligated because the descendants of Yishmael are mixed together with the descendants of Ketura and we can't tell them apart.

The Shaagas Aryeh asks on the Rambam that we have a tradition that King Sancheriv exiled all of the nations and mixed the nation with each other. Consequently the Goyim are no longer aware which nation they descend from. For that reason although certain nations such as Amon and Moav are forbidden to marry a Jewess even after they convert nowadays the prohibition no longer applies because we have no way of knowing if a convert descends from Moav or Amon and since the Ger's status is in doubt we follow the majority. If so why does the Rambam say that the descendants of Ketura and Yishmael are obligated in Bris Mila, how do we know that they are truly descendants from Ketura?

The Mincha Chinuch says that he does not understand the question of the Shaagas Aryeh. The question of whether the Descendants of Ketura are obligated in Bris Mila is completely different than if Amon and Moav are allowed to marry into Klal Yisrael. In a case where one of the Amonites converts he is considered to have separated himself from the mix and therefore the dictum would apply that something that is separated from the mix it is given the status of the majority (Kol DiParush Meiruba Ka Parush). However with regarding to the descendants of Ketura they are not separating themselves from the mix and consequently they are regarded as being ‘Kavua' (stationary). Chazal teach us that with regards to ‘Kavua' we do not follow the majority and instead it is regarded as fifty:fifty (Kol Kavua KiMechtza Al Mechtza) with an equal probability that they are from Ketura and thus the Halachah would be that we must be machmir and they would be obligated in Bris Mila.

]]>
Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800