Parshas Tetzaveh 5786 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Ask The Rav
One Who Finds Himself on Shabbos in a Place Without a Minyan
Q: I was asked regarding someone who will be in a location this Shabbos, Parshas Zachor, where there will be no minyan. What should he do, and how can he fulfill the mitzvah d’oraisa of remembering the eradication of Amalek?
A: The prevalent custom is to rule that one who unavoidably finds himself in a place without a minyan is not required to travel to another city for Shabbos if doing so entails significant hardship or expense. Likewise, he is not obligated to incur costs in order to bring a minyan—together with a Sefer Torah—from elsewhere to spend Shabbos there.
This is based on the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 685:7), which states that residents of small villages who do not have a minyan are obligated to exert themselves to go into the city in order to hear Parashas Zachor. Accordingly, it would seem that even one who must be in a place without a minyan—or someone who is ill—should exert himself to fulfill the mitzvah of remembering Amalek. However, the Magen Avraham already explains the widespread practice that people are not always so meticulous regarding Parashas Zachor, since they maintain that the mitzvah can also be fulfilled through the Torah reading on Purim. Therefore, in a pressing situation—such as illness and the like—one may rely on this view.
Indeed, this was the ruling of Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ztz”l, who held that one may rely upon the opinions that there is no bittul mitzvas aseih in such a case, and instead rely on the reading of Purim. Accordingly, even one who is ill without danger, or someone who does not feel well and finds it difficult to go to shul to hear Parashas Zachor, has grounds for leniency to fulfill the mitzvah through the Torah reading on Purim—when Vayavo Amalek is read—or through the reading of Parshas Zachor during Parashas Ki Seitzei later in the year. On Shabbos Parashas Zachor itself, he should read the section from a Chumash in order to accomodate those opinions that one fulfills the obligation in this manner. However, he need not read from a Sefer Torah—even if he has a private Sefer Torah in his home.
Sending Mishloach Manos to Someone Who Does Not Recite Berachos
Q: I was asked whether one may send mishloach manos to a person whom he knows does not recite berachos over food. After all, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 163 and 169) rules that it is prohibited to give food to someone who will not wash his hands or recite a brachah, due to the prohibition of lifnei iver. Although the Mishnah Berurah writes that when there is doubt we are lenient, nevertheless, what is the halachah when one knows with certainty that the recipient does not recite brachos at all? Must one refrain from giving him mishloach manos? Practically speaking, this may be difficult, as at times the recipient is someone they wish to draw closer, or a neighbor, and the like.
A: I received the ruling from leading poskim that it is permitted to send mishloach manos to someone who does not recite brachos over his food. If it is possible, one should certainly try to gently encourage him to recite a brachah over the foods. This I saw in Halichos Shlomo (Purim ch. 19 n. 31), where Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was asked whether one may send mishloach manos to workers when there is concern that they will not recite brachos over the food. He responded that it is permitted, for it is certainly a great mitzvah; nevertheless, it is appropriate to encourage them pleasantly to recite berachos.
Similarly, in Rivevos Ephraim (6:386), a teshuvah is cited from the author of Mishneh Halachos who ruled that it is permitted to send mishloach manos to individuals who may not recite berachos. He adds that it is preferable, if possible, to include a note inside the package reminding the recipients to recite the appropriate berachos, even specifying which berachah is to be recited over each item. Perhaps this will be effective for at least some of them. The view of Rav Nissim Karelitz ztz”l was that there is no need for concern that they will not recite brachos, since it is possible that they will give the food to others and not eat it themselves.
Sending Mishloach Manos To an Alzheimer’s Patient
Q: Does one fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos by sending it to a person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease?
A: At the outset, we must clarify the underlying reason for the mitzvah of mishloach manos. The Terumas HaDeshen (§111) writes that the purpose is to ensure that those celebrating will have enough food for the Purim seudah, for perhaps they are lacking, and through this gift his friend assists him. Some suggest that this is why the Shulchan Aruch records the laws of mishloach manos specifically in Orach Chaim 695, among the halachos relating to the Purim seudah, rather than together with matanos la’evyonim in siman 694 (see Shu”t Shevet HaKehasi I:203).
However, the Sefer Manos HaLevi (authored by Rav Shlomo Alkabetz, composer of Lecha Dodi) explains that the purpose of mishloach manos is to increase peace, friendship, and camaraderie among Jews. Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein ztz”l, in his sefer Shiurei Torah L’Rof’im (vol. III, p. 482), writes that one should not give mishloach manos to a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. His reasoning is that according to the two primary explanations of the mitzvah—either to provide food for the Purim seudah, or to increase friendship and goodwill—neither purpose is fulfilled in this case. Since the patient, due to Alzheimer’s, no longer possesses awareness, there is no enhancement of friendship and camaraderie. Furthermore, he cannot properly fulfill the mitzvah of the Purim seudah, as kavanah is required, as explained in the Pri Megadim. Accordingly, based on this reasoning, one would not fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos by sending it to such a patient.
Is a Nice Bottle of Mineral Water Considered One “Portion” for Mishloach Manos?
Q: Each year I am asked by people who wish to include a sports bottle of mineral water in their mishloach manos package together with another food item. Can the bottle of water be considered one of the two manos or not? On the one hand, it is a nice, bottled product; on the other hand, it is merely water, which may lack chashivus (importance).
A: In practice, I in accordance with the majority of contemporary poskim, who were concerned that this lacks sufficient chashivus to qualify as a manah. The basis of the doubt is as follows: The Magen Avraham writes that a manah may be fulfilled through a beverage. One must therefore consider whether this includes water as well, or only beverages of greater significance.
One could argue that water should not be regarded as a distinct manah, since it is commonly given free of charge. Anyone who requests a cup of water is provided one without payment. How, then, can this be classified as a manah, when it is something that is freely distributed? Moreover, one of the well-known reasons for mishloach manos, as cited by the poskim, is to engender friendship and goodwill. A recipient who receives water might even feel slighted by the sender’s chutzpah for giving him something that is freely available everywhere. Practically speaking, it would therefore seem that one does not fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos with water.
In Shu”t Avnei Y ashfeh (vol. VI, siman 107:3), this question is discussed. He writes that although regular water does not qulaify because it is freely available everywhere, mineral water might be different, since it is sold commercially and costs money. Nevertheless, he notes that even mineral water today is often available without charge in many offices, where water dispensers with cups are provided for public use. Furthermore, in many places there are regulations requiring offices to provide such amenities for the public. Since mineral water is something that can readily be obtained free of charge, its value is diminished. Anyone who wishes can simply enter an office and drink. Consequently, there is not an increase of peace and goodwill when one gives something that the recipient could easily obtain on his own. Although there are some prominent authorities who were lenient in this regard, the majority of contemporary poskim are concerned mineral water lacks the requisite significance to qualify as a valid manah for mishloach manos.
Are Microwaves a Concern for Bishul Akum?
Q: I am often asked regarding a case where non-Jews work in a Jewish home and heat food in a microwave oven. Is this comparable to cooking over a flame, which would fall under the prohibition of bishul akum, or not?
A: First and foremost, it should be emphasized that the prohibition of bishul akum applies only when a non-Jew cooks a food that is not edible raw and is fit to be served at a king’s table (Yoreh Deah 113:1–2). However, if the non-Jew is merely reheating food that has already been fully cooked, there is no prohibition whatsoever, even if reheated over an actual flame, since the principle of ein bishul achar bishul (there is no further cooking after cooking) applies to bishul akum as well.
Now, the decree of bishul akum applies only when the food was cooked through fire or its derivatives. It does not apply when a non-Jew prepares food through other methods, such as smoking, salting, or pickling. Accordingly, we must consider the status of microwave cooking. Is it regarded as cooking over fire—and thus included in the decree of bishul akum—or is it considered a distinct form of cooking, which perhaps would not be included in this rabbinic enactment?
In Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim 3:52), R’ Moshe discusses whether cooking in a microwave on Shabbos is deemed comparable to cooking over fire and therefore biblically prohibited, or whether it is akin to cooking in the sun, which is permitted on Shabbos (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:3). He writes that cooking in the sun is not included in the prohibition because it is not the normal manner of cooking. However, since microwave cooking is an effective and standard method of cooking just like fire, it may be derived from the form of cooking that was performed in the Mishkan and is therefore considered full-fledged cooking. According to this reasoning, one could argue that it would therefore fall under the prohibition of bishul akum as well.
Nevertheless, we may differentiate and say that regarding Shabbos, which involves a biblical prohibition, it stands to reason that any complete and effective act of cooking would be included in the melachah of mevashel. However, regarding bishul akum, even if microwave cooking is considered full cooking, it is not cooking through fire. Since the original decree was enacted in a context where cooking was done over fire, one might argue that Chazal limited their enactment to that form alone, and we cannot extend rabbinic decrees to new forms of cooking on our own initiative.
However, in Shevet HaLevi (8:185), R’ Wosner ztz”l addresses whether microwave cooking falls under bishul akum and concludes emphatically that one may not be lenient. The decree of bishul akum was not formulated as a prohibition against the technical melachah of cooking performed by a non-Jew; rather, it was a prohibition against their cooked foods, in order to distance us from social interaction that could lead to intermarriage. If so, the specific form or mechanism of cooking is irrelevant. Any food that is prepared in the normal manner of cooking and eaten as a cooked dish falls under the rabbinic decree. Only methods such as smoking, pickling, or salting—since they are not standard forms of preparing a cooked dish—were excluded. This ruling is likewise cited in Halichos Shlomo (Pesach ch. 7 n. 44) in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ztz”l, and in Shvus Yitzchak (VI ch. 6:1) in the name of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ztz”l, that microwave cooking is included in the prohibition of bishul akum.
Therefore, in practice, one should not be lenient in this matter.