Parshas Lech Lecha – 5787 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Ask The Rav
Preparing Toast on Shabbos Using an Inverted Pan
Q: I was a guest at a family’s home on Shabbos and saw them warming challah and slices of challah on the hotplate until they became completely dry and crispy, like toast. I wondered whether this involves the prohibition of bishul or any other Shabbos prohibition.
A: According to the basic halachah, several leading poskim permit warming challah until it becomes toast, and one who is lenient certainly has whom to rely upon. Although some poskim are stringent, the primary ruling follows the lenient opinions. There are two main reasons for permitting this.
- Some poskim permit making toast by placing bread on top of a pot or inverted pan on the hotplate or blech, since bread is a dry food and there is no bishul after bishul. Even according to those who suggest prohibiting it because of makeh b’patish in food, the Mishnah Berurah in Biur Halachah (O.C. 318, s.v. V’hadachasan) concludes that the prohibition of makeh b’patish does not apply to food. There is also no concern of roasting after baking, since the prohibition applies to cooking after roasting or the reverse, but not to roasting after roasting or baking after baking. Roasting after baking is likewise permitted, as explained by the Eliyah Rabbah (se’if katan 17) and Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 41).
2.Another reason for leniency is found in the Maharsham’s Daas Torah. He explains that the Rambam’s ruling prohibiting the hardening of a soft object through fire, or softening a hard object, applies specifically to utensils, but not to food, where such changes are part of the normal manner of eating. This was also the ruling of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l and Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher zt”l, as cited in Meor HaShabbos. Nevertheless, some poskim are stringent, including the Shoel U’Meishiv (Vol. II, siman 20), based upon the Rambam, and Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (Chapter 1:71).
An Additional Point Regarding Challah Warmed on a Fleishig Pot
When challah is placed directly on a pot containing meat, even if the outside is clean, the principle of nat bar nat applies. Therefore, the outer layer of the challah, to the depth of a klipah, may not be eaten together with dairy foods. However, it may be eaten with fish. Although some are stringent regarding nat bar nat during cooking, Rav Akiva Eiger (Yoreh Deah 116) writes that there is no concern in this regard, and the challah may therefore be eaten with fish.
Coloring the Back and Edges of Tefillin Straps Black
Q: Nowadays, I see people in shul wearing tefillin with straps that are black on both sides. Is this a chumrah, an actual halachic requirement, or is there no need for it? May one continue following the common practice of purchasing straps that are black only on the outside?
A: Halachah lemaaseh, the accepted custom is to color the outer side of the straps black and leave the inner side uncolored. However, some are stringent and color both sides, as there are several advantages to doing so. One who wishes to be stringent has whom to rely upon, but there is no obligation. We will briefly explain the reasoning.
The Gemara (Menachos 35a) states that Rav Yitzchak said, “Black straps are a halachah l’Moshe miSinai.” The Gemara questions this from a Baraisa stating that straps may be green, black, or white. The Gemara answers that the requirement for black applies only to the outer side, while the inner side may be any color.
The Rambam (Hilchos Tefillin 3:14) writes that since the backs of the straps are on the inner side, they are kosher even if green or white. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 33:3) rules that the inner side may be any color except red. However, the Rambam writes that it is a beautification of the mitzvah for the entire tefillin, including the box and straps, to be black. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah cites the Beis Yosef and Darchei Moshe that our custom is not to color the inner side.
I would like to explain the Rambam’s opinion and the practice of those who purchase straps blackened on both sides. The Rambam writes that it is a beautification for the tefillin to be entirely black, including the ketzitzah and the entire strap. The Beis Yosef explains that this includes the backs of the straps, but concludes that this is not our custom. Similarly, the Darchei Moshe cites the Or Zarua that both sides should be blackened, but also concludes that this is not the accepted practice.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, siman 1426) explains the Rambam similarly, writing that one who wishes to beautify the mitzvah should also blacken the backs of the straps, as implied by the Rosh. Since the requirement for black straps is a halachah l’Moshe miSinai, black is clearly the preferred color for tefillin. It therefore stands to reason that having the entire strap black is a beautification. How could one suggest that white is preferable to black, to the extent that blackening the inner side would be considered a disgrace?
Accordingly, some poskim maintain that although there is no obligation, there is certainly an advantage to coloring both sides. Besides fulfilling the Rambam’s opinion, one also satisfies the stringency of the Keses HaSofer, who writes that even the edges of the straps must be black, possibly as part of the halachah l’Moshe miSinai. Another advantage relates to the Mishnah Berurah (33:19), who writes that when the black coloring becomes worn or faded, it must be renewed. This commonly occurs where the knot is tightened, and the Mishnah Berurah emphasizes the importance of being careful about this. Several poskim therefore write that coloring both sides provides an additional benefit, and one who does so is deserving of a berachah. However, other poskim question this practice and explain why the Beis Yosef and Darchei Moshe wrote that the custom is not to color the inner side.
The Shevet HaLevi (Vol. IX, siman 16) questions why one should adopt this stringency when the Beis Yosef, Rema, and subsequent poskim did not recommend it even as a hidur, despite citing the Rambam and Or Zarua. As is evident from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, they certainly had a reason for not instituting such a simple practice. Why, then, should we change the accepted halachic practice? Although the arguments for coloring both sides are valid, the clear implication of the poskim is that even those meticulous in mitzvos did not follow this practice. Therefore, an individual who wishes to be stringent is deserving of a berachah, but there is no reason to establish it as a general ruling. In Shevet HaLevi (Vol. XI, siman 168), he further questions the Rambam. On the one hand, the Rambam rules that only the outer side must be black, yet he subsequently writes that it is a beautification for the entire tefillin to be black. Since the Rambam generally does not include rulings without a source in the Gemara, where is the source for this beautification? He therefore suggests another version of the Rambam’s text, which reads, “It is a disgrace for the tefillin to be entirely black,” rather than, “It is a beautification.” This version is supported by the Hagahos Maimoniyos and is also quoted by the Baruch She’amar. It also corresponds with Tosafos (Menachos 35a, s.v. Birtzuos Shechoros), who mention that some made their tefillin boxes white, since the requirement for black applies only to the straps. This implies that they specifically preferred white boxes to avoid a disgrace. However, the Rosh writes that having the entire tefillin black is a beautification, corresponding with our version of the Rambam.
Furthermore, even according to the version describing it as a beautification, the Rambam’s words “the ketzitzah and the entire strap” may refer not to the back of the strap, but to its entire length on the outer side, including the portion beyond the minimum required length. This also explains why the Tur (siman 33) quotes the Rambam but omits the end of his statement. If blackening the entire strap were a beautification, why would he omit it? However, according to the version that considers it a disgrace, the omission is understandable.
Halachah Lemaaseh: The Gedolei Yisrael were not particular about coloring both sides, as stated by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l and Rav Chaim Kanievsky in the name of the Chazon Ish. However, Rav Aharon Yehudah Leib Steinman zt”l said there is an advantage to blackening both sides, since the dye penetrates the entire thickness of the leather and does not wear away easily. Indeed, nowadays some bachurim purchase straps blackened on both sides. It is important to emphasize that although this fulfills the Rambam’s opinion and several other hidurim, there is no obligation or established custom to do so. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a likewise writes in Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (Vol. II, siman 22) that according to the Rambam, both sides should be blackened. The writings of the Arizal also mention blackening both sides, and this was the practice of the Maharil Diskin. Nevertheless, this remains an additional chumrah and hidur. The accepted custom throughout Klal Yisrael, as stated by the Beis Yosef, Rema, and Mishnah Berurah, is that only the outer side must be black. One who wishes to color both sides may certainly do so and thereby fulfill several additional opinions.
Practical Corner: By Rabbi Nesanel Odzer from the Rabbanim of Beis Horaah KLY
Is sleeping under a pink blanket, or driving a pink car, a problem of Lo Yilbash?
Q: 1: I am a yeshiva bachur spending Shabbos with cousins in Eretz Yisrael. When I entered the room they prepared for me, I noticed that the sheets and blanket cover were pink. Is there a problem of Lo Yilbash with sleeping in that bed?
2: A similar question arose for a Rosh Kollel who traveled to America to raise funds. He was offered two rental cars, one black and one pink, with the pink car significantly cheaper. Would driving the pink car present a problem of Lo Yilbash?
A: Before answering any shaylah, a posek must establish the metzius accurately. Pink is not automatically a women’s color for purposes of halachah. If men also commonly use pink bedding or drive pink cars, there is no issue merely because of the color. As the Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggados, Nedarim 49b) explains, the prohibition of Lo Yilbash applies specifically to items designated for one gender, whereas something commonly used by both men and women is permitted. This is also evident from the Rema (Yoreh Deah 156:2), who rules that although looking in a mirror was originally prohibited for men because it was considered a feminine practice, it is permitted in places where men also commonly use mirrors. Our discussion therefore assumes that these particular sheets, blanket cover, or car are the type that are generally only used by women.
At first glance, one might argue that sleeping under a blanket or driving a car cannot be prohibited because neither involves actually wearing women’s clothing. However, Lo Yilbash is not restricted to an actual act of dressing. Onkelos (Devarim 22:5) refers to men’s weaponry being upon a woman, and the Gemara (Nazir 59a) discusses going to battle with weapons. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 156:2) prohibits a man from looking in a mirror under Lo Yilbash when that is exclusively a women’s practice. Clearly, the prohibition can extend beyond ordinary garments. There is, however, a significant distinction regarding the purpose of the activity. The Bach and Taz (Yoreh Deah 182:5, Taz 182:4) explain that the prohibition concerns adopting the other gender’s appearance for adornment. Where the intention is simply protection from cold, rain, or sun, and not beautification, they permit it.
The Chayei Adam, in Binas Adam (Shaar Issur VeHeter 74, [also refferenced as Chapter 94]), challenges this approach from the Sifri and Gemara, which prohibit a woman from wearing weapons to war. Armor is clearly worn for protection, not adornment. This clearly implies that Lo Yilbas is not limited to cases where the object at hand is being used for aesthetic purposes.
However, an interesting observation can be made in the Kaf HaChaim (Orach Chaim 240:13–14), who records the practice of women who, after returning from the mikvah, spread one of their husband’s garments over themselves when their husbands are unable to be with there that night. This suggests that merely covering oneself with another gender’s garment may not constitute Lo Yilbash. Nevertheless, this proof is not conclusive. Being that even men do not ordinarily wear such a garment in this manner, a woman using it as a covering may not be considered doing a manly act, and therefore does not necessarily establish a leniency for our case.
Halacha li’maaseh, Mori V’Rabbi, Harav Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz shlita, was indeed machmir in both situations, ruling that when the bedding or car is of the type specifically associated with women, one should not use it because of the concern of Lo Yilbash. However, other poskim rule that in a situation of great need, where there is no reasonable alternative, one may rely on the lenient position of the Bach and Taz, since the person is not intending to adopt a feminine appearance or beautify himself, but is merely seeking a place to sleep or an affordable means of transportation.
Summary: Pink bedding or a pink car does not automatically present a problem of Lo Yilbash, provided that such items are also commonly used by men. However, when they are distinctly feminine, there is a genuine halachic concern. Mori V’Rabbi Harav Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz shlita ruled stringently in both situations, although other poskim permit relying on the lenient opinions in cases of great need where no reasonable alternative is available.