File size: 19,315 Bytes
4a6992d | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 | {
"language": "en",
"title": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
"versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
"actualLanguage": "en",
"languageFamilyName": "english",
"isBaseText": false,
"isSource": false,
"direction": "ltr",
"heTitle": "שו\"ת חתם סופר",
"categories": [
"Responsa",
"Acharonim"
],
"text": {
"Orach Chayim": [
[
"1. Peace and deliverence teacher, may you come and join, to my distinguished and fiery student, whose Torah is wonderous and distinct in the Garden of Holy Ones, his master Yosef Zalman, may his candle enlighten.",
"2 That which you said from the words of the Ramban that in the Ran in Megilla that writes a son can make a blessing on behalf of their father. That is an adult son. And my student writes that this against the Talmud, Berachos 20b, that we say etc. <i><small>[Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: Actually they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father...From here we may infer: Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, can one who is obligated by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation of one whose obligation is by Torah law?]</small>The Gemara challenges this proof: And according to your reasoning, is a minor obligated by Torah law to perform mitzvot? <small>[Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the baraita said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father.]</small></i> It is beautiful according to the version before us, but it was not to the Early Authorities that version in the Talmud there. Rather it was said unspeficially that the case the baraisa was dealing with was when eating a Rabbinical measurement. So it appears within the words of the Ran in Sukkah (38a) in the Gemara that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. See there.",
"3."
]
],
"Yoreh De'ah": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"...And regarding the issue of the trustworthiness of doctors (insofar as considering their opinions when making halachic decisions), I've already written in another teshuvah (responsum) [see: Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 158] that we don't trust doctors regarding a ruling about a specific individual to say that \"this body has a mole which discharges hairs\" (see Niddah 22b) because doctors' opinions are only trusted with regard to a specific individual (as opposed to general theoretical knowledge or trends, when we do trust them) in cases of possible life-and-death situations when the doctors determine there is an uncertainty (i.e. possibility of death) and this pushes aside prohibitions from this place of doubt [since there is a low threshold needed to violate a prohibition when there is a possibly life-threatening scenario]. But for a doctor make a determination [that would override a serious prohibition, when to do so would require] complete certainty, [something which the doctors don't have in any particular case], we don't rely on them for that. But the Sages of Talmud are trusted believed when testifying to the general laws of nature, that there it a reality in the world where a woman has a mole that discharges red hairs (i.e. not red from menstrual blood), and since this is a reality in the world, the Sages said that whenever any woman has a mole that discharges red hairs - those hairs should be immersed in water [to ascertain whether or not it is menstrual blood], etc. See Niddah 22b and you will understand. And if it wasn't for the testimony of the doctors [who said it was red because of the mole, rather than menstrual blood], we would not rely on this test [i.e. immersing it in water] since we would not know this was a possible reality for women and it would be considered dry blood, which causes impurity. But nowadays, we rely on what is most common according to the doctors' testimony, but [still] with regard to a specific person's situation, we only rely on them to the extent that it establishes a doubtful life-and-death situation..."
]
],
"Even HaEzer": [],
"Choshen Mishpat": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Peace and good wishes to my dear friend, our honorable teacher, the brilliant and wondrous Rabbi Shlomo, Head of the Court of the holy congregation of Halishtaba, God should protect them.",
"I received the seal of his holy hand about [a question] regarding the shochet (ritual slaughterer) Michael Raab, the shochet of a certain village: He met a certain honorable man, the honorable Rabbi Michael Pashkez, from your esteemed congregation and he mocked him, [telling him] that the shochet's wife gave birth to a son, and that he would honor him [to perform] the commandment of his son's circumcision - the mocker knowing that the honorable Rabbi Michael was very devoted to this commandment. So last Sunday, Rabbi Michael traveled four hours from his community to that village [to do the circumcision]. And behold, he lied to him - she had given birth to a girl. So he was a laughing stock in front of everyone [there]. And 'his soul is wrapped up in this question': And likewise does the luminary head of the court ask whether the shochet should be removed from his profession because of the deed mentioned above or what [else] to do to him?",
"Behold here we have [issues related] to monetary laws and laws of exploitation. And the latter is primary, since he in any case verbally exploited his fellow. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Bava Metzia 58b regarding the parameters of the negative commandment, “Do not exploit,” “If donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all.” And the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4 rules [like this]. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said with precision that one who said [this] to donkey drivers who regardless had come to a city to purchase grain, so no loss was caused to them, except that they requested that he inform them who sells [grain] and he mocked them with his words - violates the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” And they judged accordingly in the beginning of Pesachim 3b about the Aramean who came up [and tricked the Jews] to eat from the Pesach sacrifices, etc. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteirah [who thwarted the Aramean’s trickery, by misleading him] knew that it was not considered mocking; otherwise he would have been in violation of “Do not exploit.” Here too, [even] had the rabbi, Rabbi Michael, lived in the village and the shochet mocked him to the point that he came to the synagogue to do the circumcision and found that there was no boy there to circumcise, he would have [still] violated this negative commandment. And our Sages were stringent about this over there, to the point that they likened it to worshiping idols (Bava Metzia 39a): “[There are] three [sins before whose transgressors] the curtain [between the world and the Divine Presence] is not locked (meaning, their sins reach the Divine Presence).”",
"In monetary law [regarding] one who employs a worker to do work and it comes out that there was none; it is not about this that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, were talking about - one who is a mocker, a sinner and an oppressor - as 'we are not dealing with evildoers,' but rather when [the employer] did not survey his field (Choshen Mishpat 333:1 at the end). However in the case of [work that involves a] commandment - such as a teacher to teach one's child - it is explained in Choshen Mishpat 334:4, that [the employer] gives him his wages in full. [This is not like other workers who get the lower wage ascribed to a job that involves no actual work], because it is preferable to him [to do a commandment than to be involved with nothing]. And here too, it is preferable to him to do a circumcision and to receive the reward from heaven for his travels of walking two <i>parsa</i> than to sit idly. And if so, [the shochet] needs to pay him his wages in full. And his wage for the circumcision is ten gold coins, but I am not able to assess the wage for his travels. And the legal scholars debate about Shulchan Aruch 382(?), whether his payment should be a set fee or according to what is fit in the eyes of the judges. And it would seem to me that this amount should be the difference between the wage of one who actually did [the work] and one who thought to do it but was prevented and did not do it. And that is simple to me, but [then] the case of of Rabbi and the Sadducee at the end of the chapter [entitled] Kisui HaDam requires a little further study. ",
"However, in our times, we do not collect [these fees], as is explained there. Rather the matter returns to that which is written in Choshen Mishpat 1:5, and also there in 1:6, and because we do not have the authority from the government to expel him [from the congregation]. However, [we do have the authority] to excommunicate him from the synagogue, and to not circumcise his son. And [they may apply sanctions against him, according] to everything that appears correct to the court, as is explained in Yoreh Deah 334:6 in Remah, and in Shakh 19; and all the more so since he possesses the evil of [violating] the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” It is obvious that they may remove him from his profession, until he satisfies the plaintiff - with all that is fitting, according to that which is mentioned above - and [they] accept his repentance regarding his brazenness and [his violation of] the negative commandment of exploitation. But until then, I am in agreement to remove him from his profession; [assuming] the court receives statements from both sides and ratifies them, and finds the shochet to be liable according to all that is mentioned above. I have written all of this 'in my haste.' Such are my words, honored sir. Pressburg, Erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan 5595 according to our count (Monday, March 30, 1835), Moshe Sofer the Small from Frankfurt am Main"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"(4) 2. If there is business is happening in his shop at all, he is a mechalel Shabbos v'Yom Tov, since, behold, he is like all people who are mechalel Shabbos by prohibitions that are written in the passuk, as the Ramban, (Parshas Emor, in the passuk of \"Shabbason zichron truah,\" ibid.) who should be remembered for blessing, writes: It appears to me that this interpretation intends to state that we are commanded by law of the Torah to have rest on a Yom Tov day even from activities which are not in the category of m’lachah (“work”). Thus we are not to be engaged the whole day in wearisome tasks: measuring out crops of the field, weighing fruits and gifts, filling the barrels with wine and clearing away the vessels, and moving stones from house to house and from place to place [although none of these activities is “work” in the strict sense of the term]. Similarly, if it be a city encompassed by a wall and its gates are locked at night, [and it is therefore according to law of the Torah treated as one domain, and the prohibition against taking out aught from one domain to another is inapplicable there], they would be loading heaps on asses, as also wine, grapes, and figs and all manner of burdens they would bring on a festival; and the market place would be full for all business transactions, the shops standing open and the shopkeepers giving credit, the money-changers sitting before their tables with the golden coins before them, and the workers would rise early to go to their work and hire themselves out for such works [as described above] just as on weekdays, and so on! And since all these matters do not entail m’lachah, they would be permissible on a Yom Tov day and even on Shabbos itself! Therefore the Torah said that [Yom Tov should be a day of] shabbason (solemn rest), meaning that it should be a day of rest and ease, not a day of labor [and weariness]. And so is the lashon of the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos, Chapter 21, ibid.)."
]
],
"Collected Responsa": []
},
"schema": {
"heTitle": "שו\"ת חתם סופר",
"enTitle": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
"key": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "אורח חיים",
"enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
},
{
"heTitle": "יורה דעה",
"enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
},
{
"heTitle": "אבן העזר",
"enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
},
{
"heTitle": "חושן משפט",
"enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
},
{
"heTitle": "ליקוטי שו\"ת",
"enTitle": "Collected Responsa"
}
]
}
} |