ACCEPTABLE PROOF OF JEWISH LINEAGE

Selected Halachos from the “One Minute Halacha” project

By HaRav Yosef Yeshaya Braun, Shlita
Mara D’asra and member of the Badatz of Crown Heights

SHABBOS SHEVA BRACHOS THAT CONTINUES PAST SHKIAH

When a Shabbos Sheva Brachos takes place at Shalosh Seudos time, a problem arises in case it runs past shkiah (sunset). At a regular Shalosh Seudos, which traditionally ends after shkiah, the wine of the kos (cup) of bentching may not be drunk before Havdala, and is used instead after Maariv for making Havdala. At a Sheva Brachos, two cups of wine are poured: one is used for bentching and the other cup of wine is used for Sheva Brachos.

There is a difference of opinion among poskim whether it is permissible to drink that wine after shkiah. In order to avoid the shaila (halachic quandary) and machlokes (differences of opinion), it is advisable to conclude the Sheva Brachos before sunset. However, in case it does run past shkiah, the prevalent custom is to recite the Sheva Brachos without the bracha of hagafen, and the chassan and kalla drink from both cups of wine after Havdala. There are other halachic opinions put forth as well.

THE MITZVAH OF CHINUCH: IS ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ENOUGH?

May a child sit in a sukka that isn’t kosher?

According to most poskim, the halachic obligation of chinuch (education) is that the katan (minor) perform the critical requirements of a mitzvah to the extent that a gadol(adult) would—and not just be provided with general exposure to the concept of mitzvos. The mitzvah of chinuch entails training a katan to practice as a gadol, since the parameters and details are essential to their eventual mandatory performance.

Therefore, a parent who sits their child down for a meal in a pasul (non-kosher) sukka (or one that is covered with an awning) is not fulfilling the mitzvah of chinuch with regard to sukka.

Should a child shake a lulav the first day of Sukkos?

Regarding the mitzvah of arba’as ha’minim (the Four Kinds [requiring a blessing on Sukkos]), the Torah states: U’lekachtem lachem (take for yourselves), which halacha interprets as an imperative to own the arba minim with which we fulfill the mitzvah on the first day of Sukkos. When giving our arba minim to someone else to use on the first day (and outside Eretz Yisroel—on the second day, as well), we specify that we are giving it as a matana al menas lehachzir (a gift on condition of returning it).

It is a halachic issue for an adult to give a katan their arba minim before performing the mitzvah themselves, because a katan cannot be makneh (transfer ownership); once the child acquires the arba minim (if already of age to halachically acquire them), they cannot properly return it to the original owner. This would especially apply on the first day of Yom Tov outside Eretz Yisroel, when the parent must again fulfill the mitzvah on the second day with their own set of arba’as ha’minim. It is therefore recommended that a child have their own kosher set on which to make the bracha. (On the rest of Yom Tov, when shaking the lulav is only a Rabbinic tradition, it need not be “lachem”—so ownership is not an issue.)

When a parent’s arba’as ha’minim cannot be given to the katan as a gift—and therefore the katan cannot properly fulfill the mitzvah of arba’as ha’minim—should they still borrow a lulav and shake it on the first day of Sukkos? Some poskim maintain that chinuch is fulfilled even by a katan shaking a borrowed lulav. A possible explanation as to why this is considered chinuch even when the mitzvah is not done properly: when a child cannot fulfill a mitzvah in all its details due to their age, it is still considered viable chinuch to school them in the way they are able to perform it.

A child using borrowed arba minim is similar to the classic example brought by the Turei Aven: mitzvos require kavana (intent), but young children are not capable of proper kavana, so how can they perform mitzvos? Nevertheless, parents are obligated to teach them to perform all mitzvos. Poskim explain that this is possible since the limitations on the mitzvah are due to their age and not outside factors.

There are additional grounds for applying chinuch to a child’s bracha on arba’as ha’minim. A pasul sukka, or one that is not open to the sky (as in the first example), is not considered a sukka at all. However, unlike a non-kosher sukka, the prohibition of using borrowed arba minim is not a blight on the cheftza ([mitzvah] object) itself; it is a halachic condition for the gavra (the person [performing the mitzvah]) at a certain time, with no impact on the essential mitzvah. A child can make a bracha on the lulav on the first day of Yom Tov in the same way that adults do so for the rest of sukkos.

“OF COURSE I’M JEWISH—MY GRANDMOTHER SPOKE YIDDISH!”

Before pursuing a shidduch we should ascertain that the candidate is actually Jewish, is halachically considered single, and is not one of the pesulei chittun (those whom we are forbidden to marry according to Torah). It is common practice for the mesader kiddushin (officiating Rabbi) to research the viability of the marriage through birur yahudus (verifying Jewish matrilineage) and birur yuchasin (verifying suitability based on the family’s marriage history) before allowing a couple to wed with chuppa v’kiddushin (the Jewish marriage ceremony).

In determining Jewishness, most Rishonim state that it is sufficient for the person themselves to testify that they are Jewish. This is because there is a chazaka (halachic assumption) that no one would claim to be Jewish if they’re not, or, alternatively, due to the principle of rov (majority)—most such claims were proven to be accurate. In addition, “Milsah d’avida l’igluyei lo meshakrei bah inshei” (no one would dare lie about a matter that is bound to come to light).

Nonetheless, since kosher marriage is such a major tenet of Jewish existence, we should attempt to follow the more stringent authorities who insist on verifying these claims. Even poskim who are more lenient in this matter say, “Kol heicha d’efshar livrurei mevararinan”(wherever possible, ascertain the facts).

Many poskim argue that the statements by Rishonim concerning rov and chazaka are only valid if the individual claiming to be Jewish associates with the Jewish community retains Jewish traditions or speaks Yiddish (or Ladino). However, in current times, this is not prevalent. The assumptions of trusting an individual’s claims based on rov or chazaka are also challenged, as there are many benefits to being considered Jewish with regard to Aliyah, marrying a Jew, as well as unprecedented cultural acceptance in Western society. Adherence to true Yiddishkait (Judaism) has declined to the point that we also cannot claim a rov of “verified” Jews, since many of mixed ancestry (who may have been considered Jewish by the outside world) are not halachically Jewish.

Additionally, we recently suffered the horrific losses of the Holocaust, religious oppression under the Communism and a tragically accelerating rate of intermarriage. For the descendants of survivors—whether they are simply misinformed or attempting subterfuge with regard to matrilineage—we cannot prove that any of them are making false claims nor expect the facts “to come to light.”

Even in the olden days, there were particular k’hillos (communities) where, due to circumstance, takanos (ratifications) were enacted that those who wanted to join the community must bring evidence of their ancestry.

A RECALCITRANT RAV UNDER HOUSE ARREST

If a community suffers the misfortune of an av beis din shesarach (a Rabbi who sinned), whose wrongdoing would be cause for the common man to be excommunicated—ein menadin oso (we do not excommunicate him), nor is it a basis for moridin oso migedulaso (firing him from his position). We are directed to tell him, “Shev b’veisecha” (sit at home)—with an additional mandate: “Hikaved v’shev b’veisecha,” a word that can mean both “heavy,” as in “act as if you have a headache,” and “honor” meaning, “this will be the more honorable position for you.” It is as if the rav is served with a private nidui (ban), though it is not publicized.

(There are circumstances where the rav’s position is no longer tenable due to the nature of the offenses committed: for example, the rav’s actions subvert mitzvos to the point that it is a michshol—stumbling block—in the observance of his congregation. In addition, any crimes perpetrated against people that are subject to legal intervention may cause a de facto dismissal from authority.)

In contrast to the av beis din shesarach, we find the case in the Gemara of a tzurva derabanan (Torah scholar) who acquires a shem ra (bad reputation) and is ultimately placed in public nidui. The distinction between these two can be determined in two ways: the harsher response is due to chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d’s name) in the case of the tzurva derabanan—on account of his shem ra; alternatively, the difference lies in the fact that in the first case, the head of the Beis Din is an authority in public office, while the tzurva derabanan is a learned person who works in the private sector.

When handling either case it is imperative that utmost care and discretion be used to ensure that all the variables above are taken into account. Respect for Torah scholars and Rabbanim (halachic authorities) must be upheld—yet every effort must be made to prevent a chillul Hashem by providing the community with the most exemplary role models who uphold Torah values.

KIDDUSH LEVANA ON A CLOUDY NIGHT

Kiddush Levana, the bracha we make as the moon waxes in the sky, may only be said if we can actually see the moonlight and take pleasure in it. If the moon is obscured by clouds, and we cannot see objects that would normally be visible by moonlight, we may not be mekadesh (recite the blessing on) the levana.

However, if the cloud cover is translucent and does not totally obscure the moon, and it is still possible to see all or most things that are normally visible by moonlight, we may say the bracha. Some poskim are more lenient than others and say that if the contour of the moon is visible through the clouds, even if the light of the moon is not visible, it can still be considered seeing the moon, and we may do kiddush levana; other poskim disagree with this leniency.

There are people who are mehader (stringent) and wait in order to be mekadesh the levana on a night when the moon is completely visible, with no cloud cover; however, that is a hiddur (stringency), and not the halacha. If only part of the moon is covered by clouds, we may certainly do kiddush levana.

“One Minute Halacha” is a succinct daily presentation on practical Halacha in video, audio, and text formats, and can be accessed by phone at 718.989.9599, by email, halacha2go@gmail.com, or by WhatsApp 347.456.5665.