The Pitchei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 289:1) discusses the case of one who removes his mezuza in order to check to see if it is still kosher. His first thought and that of many other Acharonim (for some reason, this common case has not been found discussed by the Rishonim) is to compare the question to an even more common and well-known one. The Tur (Orach Chayim 8) says that if one removes his talit with the intention of putting it back on after a relatively short period of time, he does not make a beracha when he puts it back on. The Beit Yosef (ad loc.) argues, based on a gemara (Sukka 46a) that Rava would make a beracha on his tefillin every time he left the bathroom, despite the fact that he had in mind to put the tefillin back on immediately afterward. The Darkei Moshe (ad loc.) deflects this proof by pointing out that there is a difference between one who breaks his performance of the mitzva with a situation where he is not allowed to fulfill it (tefillinin the bathroom) and one who removes his talit but is allowed to return them at any point. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 8:14), based on his comments in the Beit Yosef, says that one makes a beracha upon returning a talit. The Rama, according to his view, says that one does not make a new beracha. The Admat Kodesh (I, YD 18) says that those who follow the view of the Shulchan Aruch (classically Sephardim) should likewise make a beracha when putting back a mezuza, as the mitzva was interrupted when he removed it, whereas those who follow the Rama (Ashkenazim) might not. However, there are problems with both of theseassumptions. Firstly, later Sephardic poskim rejected the view of the Shulchan Aruch, and do not require a beracha upon returning a talit (see a summary of opinions in Yechave Da’at III, 80). On the other hand, one of the most authoritative Sephardic poskim, the Chida (Birkei Yosef, Yoreh Deah, 286:10), writes that heis unsure whether after removing a mezuza one would have to make a beracha upon returning it. The Pitchei Teshuva (ibid.) explains that the doubt may be based on the following distinction between the case of talit and that of checking a mezuza. One who removes the talit has every reason to expect that he can return itwithout problem or unnecessary delay. However, when one removes the mezuza in order to check it, he should be concerned that it will indeed be found pasul. Therefore, one cannot say as easily that his intention not regarding the continued performance of the mitzva remains uninterrupted. Another factor which plays a role is the time factor. The Aruch Hashulchan (YD 289:4) says that if a day goes by before he puts the mezuza back then he would have to make a new beracha. It is hard to summarize all of the opinions among the latter poskim. Because of the concept of safek berachot l’hakel, it would appear that the majority of poskim would say that in a case where one checks the mezuza and puts it back soon thereafter that he would not make a beracha. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Da’at, ibid.) is a notable exception. A compromise position which seems to make sense is that if one gives the mezuza over to a sofer, and the matter leaves the control of the owner, then he would require a beracha and otherwise not (see Chovat Hadar 11: (26)). In your case, assuming that one doesn’t
need to take the opportunity of having the mezuza off in order to do a
required periodic check (approx. every 3-4 years) he would not make the
beracha if he returns it within a matter of hours, as questions of his
ability to return the mezuza do not arise. Before leaving Eretz Yisrael, he went to R' Simcha Bunim of Worka, to bid him farewell and to receive his blessing for his return trip. R' Simcha Bunim sighed a long sigh, from the depths of his heart, and told the chassid, "I really pity you. Jerusalem evidently didn't like you. Had Jerusalem liked you, you would have liked Jerusalem." A short time later, the chassid
returned to R' Simcha Bunim to tell him that he had decided to stay after
all. Sometimes (maybe most often), the
foreign word comes into usage before the Academiya L'Lashon HaIvrit
creates the Hebrew word.How about TOASTER-OVEN? See how many of your
Hebrew-speaking friends know that it is TANURON. Secondly, is the issue of sunrise and sunset for Jerusalem. The words that follow apply specifically to Jerusalem. (For some places, these words are totally irrelevant and for other places, the discussion is relevant but different.) Jerusalem is approx. 825m above sea level. The higher up a place is, the earlier the sunrises and the later it sets - provided you have a view of the horizon at sea level. Jerusalem's eastern view for sunrise is towards Jordan and the hills of Moav. Their elevation is approx. the same as Jerusalem, so the sun rises on the same plane as the viewer and is not earlier than it would be for an observer at sea level watching the sun rise at sea level. Therefore, in TT we list only one time for sunrise, known as MISHOR (which does not take elevation into account). Sunset for J'lem is a different story. There are some areas of the city that have a view of sunset at sea level. There are other places, where the view is blocked by hills. Therefore, we print two times for
sunset. The first, and main time, is GOVAH, taking into account the
elevation. Most authorities consider this to be the real sunset for all of
Jerusalem even though in those areas without a clear view of the horizon,
the sun seems to set earlier (about five minutes difference).The sunset
time in parentheses is the MISHOR that ignores elevation. Candle lighting
in Jerusalem is 40 minutes before the later sunset time, which means it is
only 35 minutes before the actual sunset for many areas. Whether or not
one has to "worry" about that or not, is a little unclear to me (Phil). As
soon as I getit straight, you'll get it. For the other Z'manim of the day,
the elevation of Jerusalem is not taken into account. More (IY"H) to come
on this... Why does God, after having commanded Avraham to go to the land of Israel, bring a famine that compels him to leave it? What is Avraham to gain by his stay in Egypt? Surely, God must have a benevolent purpose for forcing Avraham to abandon the land and then later return to it. Egypt was the center of materialism, and Par'o was the king of the material world. By contrast, Avraham was the master of spirituality and morality. One might think that spiritual knowledge should suffice for living a righteous life in the land of Israel, but this is not true. Avraham has to learn how to use the physical world, because in Israel spirituality and physicality are intertwined. It is the land where a farmer must do all the same physical work required of any farmer, but waits for rain, knowing that rainfall, and thus the harvest, depend only on his spiritual actions. For six years the farmer labors to grow crops, trusting that on the seventh, the land will miraculously yield its produce without his efforts. In modern Israel as well, we must take
concrete steps to ensure the economic health and military security of our
nation. Yet we too know that true security and financial strength depend
on the God of Avraham Avinu. TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh
Naaleh members for publication in theOrthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a
weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah Only after being banished by Pharaoh does Avraham return in wealth with his extended family to the Holy Land. At this point, we are told, there was quarreling ("Riv") between the herdsmen of Avraham and Lot over the same pastures. To which Avraham reacted to Lot saying, "Let there be no strife ("Meriva") between me and you… for we are kinsmen. Please separate from me." Avraham's response to this conflict is
strange: We would expect "brothers" to make up and bond, not to separate.
However, noting the above gender- change from the masculine term for
argument ("Riv") to the female aspect ("Meriva"), the Shelah suggests
pithily that perhaps there in this controversy reflected a 'feminine'
tendency to "give birth" and to nurture the dispute. [The Parshat Lech L'cha Homepage]
|
