Yom Kippur, the day after the six days. Are waffles allowed?

Although if you were a member of Kibbutz Hashemetz, in my opinion you are not guilty and do not need to make a confession.

On the 1st of September, 2017

To the Shul, peace and blessings of the Lord,

I heard that the late Rabbi Eliyahu was asked a similar question by an immigrant from Beria who, during the days of the Iron Curtain, did not know the laws of tefillin and improvised tefillin for himself, taking passages from a photocopy of the Russian Bible and placing them in wooden cubes.

Later, when he immigrated to Israel and studied the laws, his conscience perhaps bothered him to make atonement for the “in vain blessings” he blessed every day over the invalid tefillin he had placed out of ignorance, and he asked Rabbi Eliyahu. The rabbi replied: “I envy the privilege you had in putting on these ‘tefillin’.”

And it seems to me that here too, in light of your knowledge of Judaism at the time, you did a wonderful deed. You gave your life. You showed sensitivity and took in nurses so that innocent people would not suffer hunger and thirst for an entire day. Blessed are you and blessed is your lot!

With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel

The body of the deed has several halachic justifications:

A. I think that in fact it has been customary for hundreds of years to permit the desecration of Shabbat in order to save Gentiles, either from the fear of being punished if it were known that a Jew refrained from saving them on Shabbat, or from the early methods that permit the desecration of Shabbat for the sake of the desecration of a Gentile who observes the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah. This is what religious medical workers rely on every Shabbat.

B. If you had a walkie-talkie, you might have been able to call your commander instead of eating the waffles and draw his attention to the situation. Using a walkie-talkie if there is no incandescent light bulb is only a slander to most poskim, and then there is perhaps room for permitting it for the reasons of the case.

C. Maybe you could have put so much salt on the waffles that they would be ‘unfit to eat’ and then apparently there would be no Torah prohibition in eating them.

I am not a halachic posker, but for the sake of argument it is worth discussing these options.

Best regards, Aisha

The fact that he is jealous of him for the privilege does not mean that he has gone out of his way. Of course not. Although in the responsa of Sod Yesharim to Lavan Ish Chai, he wrote in the name of his grandfather, who was also the rabbi of Baghdad, that someone who has worn invalid (slightly rounded) tefillin his entire life is not considered a scoundrel who does not wear tefillin. And these are strange words in relation to the halakha. In relation to the reward in the hereafter, that is a different discussion. See here on the website in my opinion on lemon extract on Passover.

Does the statement that he is not a scalp without wearing tefillin also have a halachic meaning besides the issue of reward in the next world?

As far as I remember, his statement was that they were fulfilling the commandment of tefillin, not just "Krakfata dala Menach" in the mystical sense. His assumption was that it was a man who was a deacon.

Perhaps he meant that God is supposed to ensure that their situation in the hereafter will be exactly the same as if they had laid out squares (especially according to the verse that the act is only a condition). One drove on the main road and the other walked through the mountains and valleys, and both arrive at the exact same place.

Since I have been renewed in the treasure of wisdom, I have now opened. Rav Pe'lim Ch”d O”ch Si’ B.
He was surprised, “if so, God forbid, they would be deprived of a great and supreme mitzvah that stands at Rosh Pina… and a word like Dana, the mind cannot bear it”. And they are like Rabbi Ben Ha-Horani who said to him in the Mishnah, “If you were to act like this, the mitzvah of a sukkah would not exist in your time” [However, there are interpretations there that from your time he did not fulfill the mitzvah properly, or that they used exaggerated language].
Then he replies, “They have ceased to exist, with his intention that he intended to perform a mitzvah for the sake of Heaven, because in his eyes this is a complete and complete mitzvah, and if he performs it for the sake of Heaven, he will surely have a full reward” And his view is that they follow the intention and not the deed in terms of reward.

It seems that in the question he is concerned with wondering how they will lack the mitzvah itself and in the answer he answers that they will deserve that reward. (Perhaps from the beginning all he asked was about the reward. That is, about the multitude of consequences that arise from a mitzvah as a correction, and therefore he wondered how they would lack this perfection).

I will give his two answers. In the section “Secrets of the Righteous,” he really deals with the foolishness of the heart and claims that in the offense of rape there is no foolishness of the heart: Question. A person who drank a drink and had an ant or mosquito in him in a way that he did not cause it by himself, but this thing happened to him in a complete rape in a way that cannot be blamed and said he should have been protected and was not protected. Similarly, a certified butcher and a herder who made the mistake of slaughtering with a damaged knife by mistake did not notice and the meat was eaten by kosher people. Or a butcher from a cell that was inspected and entrusted according to the Sages and is held to be a herder but was secretly wicked and fed Israel carrion and carrion. What is the ruling on those who ate according to their own will and were unaware of this evil thing, neither at the beginning nor at the end, if their souls were defiled by this impurity? The abominations and abominations that it is written, “You shall not defile yourselves with them, and you shall be defiled by them,” will teach us in the Book of Exodus and the Law. Answer: An unclean creature, as well as carrion and carrion, do not defile the soul of man, and even though it is written, “You shall not defile yourselves with them,” it is not intended to say that their bodies defile the soul of man. Rather, every forbidden and unclean thing has a spiritual power of impurity upon it, and when a person eats it, that power of impurity rests upon the person and enters him and defiles him. This is true if he is a complete compulsive person who does not know at all about the prohibition and impurity, and he also does not have to attribute to it the cause that he caused himself to stumble by mistake, or if he ate that forbidden and unclean thing, the same power of impurity of that thing does not apply to the person, and the power of impurity is not permitted to enter him or touch him. And similarly it was said about Yael, about whom the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "My name bears witness to her that that wicked one did not touch her, and the matter will be wonderful, and is it not so with the husband's reasons, but with his reasons, since they were in complete rape, the power of the slander and the evil of his fornication did not touch her, and the slander did not affect her. And I raised a case in the Sa'd concerning the wise man who places food under the table that has an evil spirit upon it. And I said, "If a man places food belonging to his friend under the table without his knowledge, and the one who places it is a stranger who is not the son, wife, or slave of the owner of the food, so that it is said, "Their hand is like the hand, no evil spirit shall affect it." This is what is said about the food placed under the table, according to the Sa'd, who said, "No man forbids something that is not his." Therefore, the ruling of the slanderers is that If a foreigner drinks the wine of Israel in order to lose it, he is not forbidden, and a mother is not forbidden, and not a wine that has been drunk creates impurity in the soul of a person, just as in preserved wine. But in this case, since the foreigner wants to drink the wine and defile it by the will of the owner, the power of impurity does not apply to the wine due to this shaking and it remains pure. But in the response of Rav Pe'alim, O'Haq Ch. 2, he discusses the question of invalid tefillin, and there he writes that he has a mitzvah. Although in some of the formulations it seems that he intends to say that he has a mitzvah reward, which is a different statement. And since all of these things relate to what I wrote here, I will present them in full: + Regarding tefillin houses that are not square and regarding the strips that are worked by Gentiles. + Here it is known that the houses of the head and hand tefillin that were made here in our city of Baghdad, Ya'akov, from ancient times were not square until they were visible to the senses that they were not square, and I do not need to examine them with a compass and a measuring instrument. And at the time of our great Rabbi Moshe Chaim, the elder of the Zaki, Rabbi Moshe Chaim, the dear sage Rabbi Yehuda Ashkenazi, the one who was from Damascus, Ya'akov, and was knowledgeable in several crafts, came here to our city and argued before Rabbi Moshe Zellah about the tefillin that were not square and that it was within his power to teach the craftsmen to make them square. And Rabbi Moshe Zellah, after reviewing the words of the poskim on this matter, agreed to reject them, and when Rabbi Korban Isha, the elder of the Zillah, spoke about this, A ”H 67 7’ In the length of ”S then he announced in all synagogues that all the tefillin worn by the people of the city are invalid. And from now on they will wear their tefillin without a blessing until a craftsman teaches them to make new square tefillin that will be complete and correct and aligned with the compasses and the measuring tool. Then everyone must make new houses and bless them, and so it was that the entire congregation, from the Mekton to the Great, did not bless the tefillin, and after the one who sat in the chair, Hari Ashkenazi, the late With the craftsman day and night, they learned to make well-squared tefillin, aligned with compasses and measuring instruments. Then the entire congregation built new houses and blessed them. Even though this matter was very difficult for the city leaders and individuals in the congregation, and even for some of the sages in the city, saying that it is a disgrace for us to say that the people of the great city of Baghdad, Ya'akov, had not been wearing kosher tefillin for several years until this Ashkenazi came and made us kosher tefillin. Now they could not delay this matter, because who could open their mouth before Rabbi Moshe Zella? And who could, despite his words and despite their will, bow their heads to fulfill his decree. And through him, the entire large congregation in this city, which is a city and a mother in Israel, was granted the privilege of being a great congregation in this great mitzvah of tefillin to do it according to the law. The righteousness of God is in the name of God. He did merit and merited the many, because even on the basis of this Sberat Riaz, the Reish of the Laws of Tefillin, which Rabbeinu Chid, may God bless him, alluded to in another collection that brought the answer of Rabbi Zera Yaakov, may God bless him, now it is known that Sberat Riaz, may God bless him, is the only one among all the poskim who say that even the houses must be squared, and that the tefillin that were made here, which were visible to the sense of the lungs, were not square, are invalid, and Rabbi Atar Moshe, may God bless him who made this correction, and may God bless his share, the merit of the many depends on him. And here are the praises to God, the blessed one, and here is another correction in the matter of tefillin, because after the 16th year that Rabbi Mor Zakeni Zellah passed away, the sages were moved by the work of the straps that the scribes were making and saw that they were not processing the leather of the straps into oil, but were buying leather that had been worked by a Gentile, completely worked, and they were throwing a little lime on them and saying, "For the sake of the sanctity of tefillin, this second work that they do with their hands does not increase or decrease anything, because that leather is not returned to the stretched hand so that the first work of the Gentile is completely canceled, but it remains in the work of the Gentile, and this is the main thing, and it is known that there is no permission for this except only on a special occasion and in a time of need." Then the sages, with the help of Rabbi Mor Avi Zellah, gathered together and made new straps from new, processed leather. From the beginning, Israel used Tefillin and declared that the entire congregation would change their belts and do Tali’at, and from that time onward, the matter was well established, and everything was the work of Israel from the beginning. And, servant, it occurred to me to investigate these matters and similar matters in a matter that is invalid from the law, and there were many who complained about it from the beginning. If it is said that God did not obtain a commandment according to the law, and according to its observance as it was given, to Moses, a recitation from the hymn, and delivered to a faithful congregation, then God would be deprived of it, a great and supreme commandment, which stands at the head of the people, which is practiced every day and every day and in every time and forever, and a word like that, the mind cannot bear it. Another such investigation, however, is sometimes found in a person who wrote tefillin and gave it to the important proofreader in charge of it and he did a proofreading for him and it happened to him in one of his troubles that the proofreader was busy and he made a mistake in his proofreading that the tefillin error disappeared from him in the lack or gain of one letter or one letter and he wore it according to its integrity for several years and when he opened it to check it a second time the aforementioned mistake was found in it and it was found that he had not kept the mitzvah for several years and had blessed a blessing to no avail. How could this innocent and upright man be naked from this great mitzvah because it is also possible that he did not realize this mistake until after his death and so he went naked from this mitzvah to his home in the world and still had a mistake in his hand making a blessing to no avail? This is also a very difficult thing to bear with the mind. And for this I found a remedy that came from the mouth of a great Rabbi, whom the Gaon Hidalgo brought in honey according to me, and the great Rabbi of the Rakhi copied his words in the book Lev Chaim Ch. 2 Si. Yod /Yd./, who also was awakened by a matter similar to this and wrote and z. Here I saw the great Rabbi Hidalgo in B'Davash according to the system of D. Letter D., who brought from there a book without the collection Ch. 22 Shiblat Ch. He wrote in the name of the great and the illustrious, and every man receives a reward for everything he sees in his mind if his mind is directed to heaven. For you see that tefillin that you sew in linen are invalid, as the chapter of these things says. Rav Chazinan said to the tefillin of the beloved of the beloved, the day of the halakhah, the day of the halakhah, and certainly Rabbi Chiya the Great, he had the reward for tefillin like the other Hasidim, and even though they were sewn in linen, it seems that even if they were sewn in linen, according to the halakhah, they were invalid tefillin. Therefore, whoever in his mind is directed to heaven to fulfill the mitzvah has the reward for tefillin, for that reason. And apparently, the liquid has changed from what we have learned in Sukkah, p. 2, mishnah 7; They said to Rabbi Ben HaChorani, if you had acted thus, the mitzvah of Sukkah would not have been fulfilled from your time, and they interpreted the verse in Barish Sukkah, page 3, as saying, "I tell you, Meni, etc.", which meant to say that even if he did not act according to the Torah, it is found that even if he lived according to his neighborhood, it was for its sake to fulfill the mitzvah of God. Even if he had acted thus, he would have been free from that mitzvah from his time, and he would have been free from that mitzvah, and he would have been free from that mitzvah. Who is Rabbi Zal in the chapter of Yo'd /Y'd/ of Pesachim Mishnah of the Book of the Law? Whoever did not say these three things on Passover did not come out of the house of God, he interpreted, did not come out of the house of God properly, but did not come out of the house of God at all, he did not say and he did not say in the Sukkah, if that was how you would have practiced, the mitzvah of Sukkah does not exist from your days, not exactly, this is not a reason, but because I did not come to you after you sent us, and all this did not continue, not like it did not come out, but certainly, as we say, according to what they brought in the chapter on Passover, עבר דפסחים עז לפסחים עז מלאה מ In fact, the meaning of the phrase "Der Zel" is that the Ramban spoke against kings in wars and from the beginning he spoke against kings and I will not be ashamed, nor will I He will not be given the reward of a mitzvah in full, but if he made a mistake and did not fulfill the mitzvah according to the rules of the Sages, and time has passed, and there is no way to fix it, then he will have the reward of a mitzvah in his hand, since he did according to the Torah, even though the rules of the Sages were lacking, since he made a mistake in it, then we have clear things now, and for this we mean that he performed a mitzvah according to the Torah, but if he made a mistake and did not fulfill the mitzvah at all, even according to the Torah, such as if there was a violation of the Torah, he will not have any reward at all, and we will not be deprived of his intention. Ibra, also according to the Torah, You have not broken the mitzvah of a sukkah since your days, even from the Torah. There is no contradiction in this with the words of the ancient Rabbi who brought Rabbi Chida as a guide to the sailing. They said so to establish and strengthen their words with a permanent and strong nail in order to establish this halakha with him from now on. But, alas, they also admit that what he did before, according to his own will, who thought that the law was like this and with his heart whole to heaven, he has a full reward for his mitzvah, and God is responsible for every violation of a mitzvah that was done in error, and an error will not detract anything from his reward, since his defilement was complete to heaven, and unlike Rabbi Ya'av'etz, the late Das'l, if by error he did not fulfill the mitzvah, even according to the law of the Torah, he has no reward at all. And I will bring evidence from this from the Gemara Dehoryot, page 14, p. 2, by Rabbi Nachman ben Yitzhak: A greater sin for its own sake than a mitzvah not for its own sake, as it is said: Blessed among women is the she-camel, etc. For here the act itself is a sin, then since it was done for the sake of God = for the sake of Heaven = it has a great reward, and so here in the verse where there was a sculpture in a mitzvah, there is no sin here, then his intention is that since the Lord performed a mitzvah because in his eyes this is a complete and complete mitzvah and he did it for the sake of God, he certainly has a complete reward. And even if he did it here, we call it a sin, such as a blessing to nullify it in the matter of carving tefillin and the like. Here this is called a sin for its sake and it does not detract from it. And we said that a sin for its sake has a great reward, as it is written among women in the tabernacle of the blessed, from whom Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah were born, and also according to the conclusion, does it conclude that a sin for its sake is like a mitzvah that does not have a reward for its sake? And carefully.

I didn't see you upload it.

By the way, this is also found in the Sh”at project (no need for the treasury of wisdom).

Incidentally, in the reply with many verbs, he begins with a long praise for his great beard, on which the rights of the many depend for having earned them the right to pray in four-square tefillin. In the reply itself, it emerges from his words that his beard did not contribute to the rights of the many at all, because both before him and after him, their rights were like a pomegranate.

Do you think that there are indeed both things here – one, that the correction of the matter is a right for many, and the other, that even before the correction, those many had the usual reward, just as they will receive after the correction. Or do you have to choose one?
Holding both sides probably means that after all there is an advantage for the one who does the commandment as a further correction over the one who merely intends and does the deed, and if you accept that there is such an advantage – not only an obligation on the man but a better result – then your questions are brought to their conclusion as to why there should be effects for a realization that does not depend on the actual person.

It seems to me that both things are correct according to his method. The correction that comes from the mitzvah of tefillin is not done with invalid tefillin. But they have a reward (and perhaps even fulfillment of a mitzvah, in a strange way).
I didn't understand the difficulty.

That is, reward depends on the power, but corrections depend on realization. Why would God depend on realization? It is clear that all corrections are born from a person's choice to do an act, because it does not sound reasonable that the water flowing into the sea thereby corrects a great correction in the upper realms. And if corrections belong only to human power, then why would a condition of realization that is not related to man be added? God is the one who determined the mechanisms of corrections (just as He determined the procedures for receiving the reward), and therefore one can ask about them as about any command of God, and there is no point in saying that such a correction occurred to Him as part of creation. Whatever you think in the column about intention and action.

It's like a person doesn't get burned if they don't enter the fire. And if they do, they'll get burned even if their intentions are pure and wonderful. There are fixed rules, and that's how it came about in his will to create the world. Only an actual act makes a full correction. Good intentions may or may not correct something. But from the perspective of the man, it's an act that deserves a reward.
Regarding a person's reward, there's a simple explanation that it depends on their intentions even if they don't come true. Therefore, I wouldn't say that it came to his mind that it would depend on the actual act. But regarding the correction of the world, that's a matter that I have no explanation for, and therefore, the Holy One's mind is the determining factor. In short, there's no problem here, but at most a question.

A. What is the difference between all of God’s behaviors, creation or command or reward, seemingly all the same, and if in one of them we can say that He just did something without a reason that we understand, then so is in all of them. Why are the laws of Halacha expected to be understood more than the laws of nature (and according to you, the matter of corrections is like the laws of nature and not Halacha)?
B. And in particular, that we do not know about the matters of corrections, but it comes from an explanation (which I understand you also hold), since there must be a certain contribution to the fulfillment of the true commandment, and in order to invent something from an explanation, it must, well, have an explanation (therefore, this is a question and not a question, because it is not given that a correction is really different from a reward).
C. What do you think about the possibility that a negative electric charge that attracts its positive companion corrects this, especially an elevation? No one has ever thought of this, because it is clear to everyone that the whole matter of corrections is based on the choice of man, and therefore God does not wish to directly create the corrected situation Himself. If so, then there is a very good reason to think that the corrections do indeed depend only on the choice of man (like the reward) and not on their realization.

We repeat ourselves.
A. I explained that there is a difference between a question and a question.
B. Indeed, it comes from an explanation. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the meaning of the commandments. This is a question, not a question. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it contradicts logic.
C. If we were commanded to do so, then perhaps there would be a correction in it. Indeed, only voluntary acts are corrective, but that does not mean that the choice itself is corrective. An act done out of choice is required.

Isaiah 29:8 in the wilderness.