MISC section - contents: Q I want to remove the mezuza from a doorpost to replace it with a more beautiful mezuza. When I do so, should I make a new beracha upon affixing it? A First, let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. If you want to put the same scroll in a new, more beautiful case, then you do not make a new beracha. (If you “inherited” the mezuza from a previous resident, see below). The mitzva has not been changed significantly, as the mitzva relates to the mezuza scroll alone. The short break in time is not a factor in a case where one takes it off with the expectation to return it imminently. If you take the opportunity to check the mezuza before reaffixing it (not a bad idea, as it should be checked twice in seven years) then it is a more complicated question (see Ask the Rabbi, LechLecha 5764). Regarding switching the mezuza itself, we do not have early sources on the matter, and the Acharonim expend much energy to find the closest precedent. The Rosh (Tzitzit 20) implies that if one switches garments, each of which is obligated in tzitzit, he makes a beracha when putting on the new one. Is switching mezuzot comparable? There is a difference, as there is a break in the obligation to have tzitzit while no four-cornered garment is on him, and a new obligation is created when he puts on the new garment. In contrast, by mezuza, the house generates a continuous obligation of mezuza, so a new beracha might not be in place. According to most authorities (see Kaf Hachayim 25:79; Yabia Omer III, YD 17) if one removes a pair of tefillin to replace it immediately with another, he makes a new beracha. This is more similar, in that the fulfillment of the same obligation continues with a different object, and we see that one makes a new beracha.However, this too may not be exactly analogous, as many are of the opinion that there is not a continuous mitzva to wear tefillin all day, as there certainly is for a mezuza to be on the wall. Therefore, it is less clear that continuing the mitzva of mezuza with a different scroll is a new enough fulfillment of the mitzva to require a new beracha. Nevertheless, the Maharam Shick (YD 285) says that, assuming one did not have in mind for the second mezuza while putting on the first (here, the second one may not even have been written when the first was affixed) the earlier beracha does not cover this mezuza, and one needs a new beracha. Although some argue, Chovat HaDar (11:14) follows this opinion and Yabia Omer (ibid.) leans toward it. (The latter suggests strengthening the need for a beracha as follows. If one waits a few hours between removing one and affixing the other, there is enough hesech hada’at to require a beracha even according the dissenting opinions(see Ben Ish Chai II, Ki Tavo 8)). If a previous resident affixed the first mezuza, then he who affixes one now was not involved in the beracha and should make one now even if he removes and returns the same mezuza (Har Tzvi, YD 287). There is another issue to consider. The gemara rules that it is permitted to remove tzitzit from one garment in order to put them on another (Shabbat 22a), but the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 15:1) says that it is forbidden if one does not plan to put the tzitzit on another garment. The issue is of disgracing an article used for a mitzva by taking it out of use. Since Rishonim (including Tosafot, Shabbat ibid.) equate removing a mezuza to removing tzitzit, it is problematic to replace a mezuza without sufficient justification. There are significant opinions that if one does so in order to replace the mitzva object with a more beautiful one it is permitted (see Mishna Berura 15:3 and Har Tzvi, ibid.). However, it may be best to switch the mezuzot when one promptly affixes the removed mezuza in a place that needs one (Torah Lishma 244). This works only if the second doorway requires a mezuza on the same level as the first (sometimes the need for a mezuza is rabbinic or even just a stringency) (Chovat Hadar 1:9). Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha
sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire
Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org.
And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to
info@eretzhemdah.org with the
message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew
(for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe
Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel One day, as he was home, the older brother heard chopping outside his house. He opened the door and saw a laborer demolishing the threshhold, as the Rav stood by supervising the work. "From now on", the rabbi said with a smile, "your vow is
null and void, and your brother can enter your house." As a young man, Avraham arduously searched for the Almighty. When he was convinced of God's existence, he wanted to share his hard-earned discovery with his contemporaries who had been led astray by idolatrous images and figures. He engaged them in debate, declared that their lifestyle was founded on errors and became an iconoclast, orchestrating the destruction of his father's idols. So intellectually overpowering was Avraham that the reigning potentate, Nimrod, attempted to kill him. In Ur Kasdim, he didn't build altars or produce disciples. The first stage, fraught with danger and tension, ends with a fugitive Avraham escaping to Charan. In Charan, Avraham became an itinerant preacher and lecturer, wandering from place to place and traversing a significant portion of the civilized world. He built altars either as a locus for prayer or as a forum to articulate his ideas. The third most illustrious stage took place in Eretz Canaan. There he planted an Eishel which epitomized Avraham as the quintessence of Chesed. Here he became the teacher par excellence who is an exemplar of Chesed while simultaneously dialoguing with his contemporaries, sensitive to each individual. Rambam describes how Avraham wined and dined his sought after guests. These characteristic acts of Chesed deeply effected the hearts and minds of listeners, generating thousands of adherents and devotees. This third methodology was eminently successful. In his sojourns, Avraham had metamorphosed from a young
iconoclast, to an itinerant preacher and finally in Eretz Yisroel to a model
of Chesed. Avraham had embarked on a journey of self discovery. His odyssey
reached its climax when the 'Brit of Chesed' became his overriding
guideline. Therefore the Torah only briefly and cryptically alludes to the
first two stages of his career; the ultimate stage, a life of Chesed, was
only realized in the land that Hashem had promised him. Rabbi Avishai David, Beit Shemesh; TORAH THOUGHTS as
contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's
'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah Although Avraham was not commanded to slay his son, our rabbis concur that this step was a natural corollary to the Divine command to “bring him [Isaac] up there as an offering upon one of the mountains” (Bereishit 22:2). With that thought in mind, one of the most striking elements of this episode appears to be Yitzhak’s declaration: “But where is the lamb for the offering?” For Rashi and Rambam the Akeida was the last of ten tests to which Avraham was subjected. It is clear, insofar as Avraham represents the archetype of the Jew, that our determination to serve G-d under the most demanding of circumstances is similarly being tested today. And as we can in no way rationalize that Yitzhak deserved to die, so we find it difficult to comprehend the sacrifices being made in our times. Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer describes how the tears of the angels
fell into Yitzchak’s eyes at the moment of truth. And as we lie on the altar
today, perhaps it is appropriate to echo the angels’ plea to G-d: “Lo! The
knife is at his throat. How long will you wait?” [The Parshat Vayeira Homepage]
|
