json/Responsa/Acharonim/Teshuvot Maharshal/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Teshuvot Maharshal",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_Maharshal",
    "text": [
        [
            "A, who had for a number of years been using a seat in the synagogue bequeathed by his father to him and to his brothers, acknowledged on his deathbed that his brothers had not given him their share of the seat in perpetuity. A had no children by his wife and had divorced her before he died in order to free her from the obligation of marrying one of his brothers. The woman, however, claimed that the whole seat belonged to her deceased husband, since he had held it during a period of three years, which legally gave him title to it; moreover, he had offered it once as a pledge for a charitable contribution. Hence she was entitled to collect her <i>ketubah</i> from the value of the whole seat.",
            "The brothers, on the other hand, claimed that two-thirds of the seat belonged to them, but because they lived in another town they had allowed their brother, for the time being, the use of the whole seat. Selling it to somebody else would, in their opinion, have been a disgrace to their deceased father; and their brother's offer of the seat as a pledge for charity was done with their permission. ",
            "<b><i>Q</i>.  Has the divorced wife the right to collect her ketubah by claim of undisturbed possession, from the value of the whole seat in the synagogue?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The assertion of the brothers that they would not sell the seat in the synagogue out of respect for their deceased father, and that their brother had been using the seat in their absence with their permission, is readily believable. Moreover, A on his deathbed acknowledged the brother's ownership of the seat, and the confession of a dying person must be respected. Therefore, the woman's claim of undisturbed possession, being unsupported by any legal title, is not valid and she cannot collect her ketubah from the whole seat; but she can collect from the part which belonged to her husband, minus the amount which he pledged for charity."
        ],
        [
            "A, contemplating moving from his town to another locality, offered his house for sale to B at a price less then the market value, but on condition that the sale should become void in case he be forced to remain in town. The sale was then executed by the payment of the agreed sum in the presence of two witnesses, whereupon A repeated his stipulation. The deed of conveyance, however, which A afterwards delivered to B, was drawn without the reddendum, and in the presence of two other witnesses.",
            "An unavoidable accident occurred forcing A to remain in town, whereupon he sought to annul the sale, on the ground that he had sold the house with reservations.",
            "B acknowledged A's statement that the original sale had been made subject to the condition of A's moving from the town. But, B maintained, the deed of conveyance which A wrote afterwards before other witnesses, constituted a new, independent sale in which he apparently waived the right of his first reservation. Moreover, even if he wrote the deed with his mind on the stipulation first made, the deal could not be affected thereby, because he had failed to tell of it to his new witnesses, who did not know the condition he had orally made before the first witnesses.",
            "A maintained that he had never waived his reservation, and that the deed had been written with the intention stipulated orally. Moreover, a contract without a consideration is void, hence the deed of conveyance did not constitute the sale of the house; the payment of money, on the other hand, does constitute a deal, therefore the sale of the house was consummated upon the payment of the money and subject to the condition made at the time.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Can a contract without payment consummate a deal?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. One can convey to another any object by a mere deed, in consideration of love and affection or good will, without receiving any other compensation therefore. But in a deal where consideration is the determining factor, as in the case of A and B, the consideration paid concludes the deal and the document only is to serve as evidence.",
            "Therefore, if the deed has the phrase: \"I sold you the house for the sum of_______\", the deed must be taken as a document of evidence and the house belongs to A; but if the deed has the phrase: \"Hereby I am selling you the house for the sum of________\", then B would be justified in his claim, because it constituted a new deal, as it was written before new witnesses, and A failed to declare his stipulation to them."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permissible for a sick person to consult gentile sorcerers?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. When life is in danger or such probability exists, or in case a limb of the body is in danger, such consultation is permissible; for sorcerers at times help through genuine remedies. But when no danger is involved this practice is prohibited, because sorcery in general is based on nothing else but falsehoods, deceit, and delusions.",
            "And this is proved in an opening passage of Yevamot (4a) where we ask about the requirement to stone a sorceress, and we don’t derive her sentence from the category of the medium and the wizard.",
            "For we cannot say that the prohibition on the medium and the wizard derives from, “Before a blind person, do not place an obstacle” (Lev. 19:14), which is Rabbi Yishmael’s position in the chapter Arba Mitot (Sanhedrin 56b), about the Children of Noah [non-Jews], that they are prohibited from magic, since we do not rule in favor of R Yishmael {I think this is actually referring to R Yosi}",
            "For all of Talmud teaches that Children of Noah are only commanded in the seven commandments, and the Riba (Isaac ben Asher Ha-Levi, 11th cent Tosafist) and Asheri (Asher ben Jehiel, aka the Rosh, 13th cent. halakhist) also ruled that it is not according to Rabbi Hizkiya/Hidkiya, who said that the Children of Noah are commanded on castration [or sorcery - the rest of the line of gemara in Sanhedrin 56b discusses sorcery in the name of Rabbi Shimon]",
            "And if so, there is no prohibition here, only the positive commandment to “be whole-hearted” [with the Lord your God, Deut. 18:13] as it is written, and it seems from his words that he is not proclaiming a real prohibition. And I say, with all due respect [to the Rosh], he did not read the words of the Rambam carefully enough, as he wrote in chapter 11 in Idol Worshippers, “It is forbidden to do magic or to ask a magician, rather we inflict the lashes of rebellion upon the asker, and the magician who actually does this act [of magic] is lashed” etc. (Mishneh Torah, Avodat Kochavim, chapter 11)",
            "And if so, you can see that he explicitly declares that both of them are prohibited [by Torah], but because here [in the case of the question being asked] there is no [actual] act, we do inflict merely rabbinic lashes upon him [as opposed to biblical], as he wrote in that same chapter about the asker of a medium, and what is written in that same chapter that they are in the general prohibition because of “wholehearted you shall be” (Deut. 18:13), this is specifically for those who believe in them. On this he says that he is among fools and idiots, and the Torah warns against this nonsense and those who believe in it and think that it’s the truth, as he wrote explicitly, “And only on those who believe,” wrote Rambam in that same chapter, [in the case that] his work or his profession in a fixed way is an astrologer of the heavens, indeed he is lashed.",
            "And I say that Rambam was reasoning about what is written in the Torah about one who asks a medium or a wizard specifically, but in these other cases written about in this passage, for example, a meunan (necromancer), menachesh (fortune teller), kosem (magician), and a mechashef (sorcerer), the Torah only associated “the asker” with the prohibition on “the medium” because it is making a distinction between “the asker” [aka, one who wants to actually call forth a spirit] and one who turns to the medium themself. ",
            "For one is a venal sin and the other is a mortal sin, which is not true about all of the others, but, in fact, the word “the asker” refers to all of those verses which precede it. Indeed, and also since a medium has no method other than asking, since even one who turns [to them] can only ask, and behold, the proof is that Rashi explained that the prohibition extends to one who turns [to a medium, not just the asker], and it is for that reason that the Torah wrote “One who asks a medium”",
            "And the same is true in all those cases in which the manner of performing the magic does not involve asking a question, but rather doing the act itself. Even so, one who asks them is liable [to biblical punishment].",
            "But nonetheless, in Ramban’s teshuva I found that specifically the medium and the wizard are what the Torah forbids [a person from] asking, but you don’t have the other ones that are written in the verse. And [here’s Ramban’s quote]: “[If] an Israelite asks a non-Jewish sorcerer, this is only forbidden because of “wholehearted you shall be,” like one who asks astrologers,” and once we’ve come to this conclusion, it seems that even a regular sick person is not forbidden from asking a sorcerer or magician according to what Rambam reasoned, that there is no warning rather a prohibition in all cases because of “wholehearted you shall be” ",
            "And also, it’s not really a prohibition, it’s a mere midrashic interpretation, because it’s not listed in the general mitzvot or the positive commandments, and also the essence of the text is to be wholehearted, which is to be faithful with God, May He be praised, to remember Him and be assured of him, to etch him in the heart of man, and because of this, in the case where one is sick, it is not appropriate to be stringent and turn [this drash] into a prohibition.",
            "But in any case, I say that since the essence is that he is prohibited them since they are vanities and frauds and things of trickery, and there is nothing real in them.",
            "If so, what is the reason not to be lenient in general with asking sorcerers because of “wholehearted you shall be” since there is nothing real in them and all of it is silliness? ",
            "He [Rambam] said that a sick person who is in danger is permitted, even according to the Rambam, since sometimes they [the non-Jewish sorcerers] are correct and find things that are real and accurate, and even a doubtful risk of death pushes off Shabbat, which is [a crime punished by] stoning -- so all the more so in this case!",
            "But where there is no danger to life, no [this is not permitted]. Even [in a case of] danger of limb [this is prohibited], because all of the Achronim disagree with Rabbenu Tam, who compared the danger [of loss of] limb to the topic of desecrating. Desecrating Shabbat for danger to one’s life, the analogy is clear [but this is not the case for danger to limb, so it is prohibited in this case]",
            "And in any case, sometimes he sees [fit to] be lenient even on things where there is no danger to life, rather danger to limb, for example when it is known that a sick person comes to a person who does magic or in a case [where there is] a bad spirit, that it is permitted to ask them, according to the words of the Rambam, in their eyes or similar to them, most sorcerers know and find help and medicine [ie, they may be pseudo-doctors] and it is possible, even according to Rambam, that he will see to find a leniency and to say that the Torah does not prohibit magic in this manner, that it came only to expel and cancel magic and bad spirits and the like, for the Torah only prohibited asking of them and pursuing after them and believing in them when it is true in their eyes",
            "And there is some proof of this matter in that the Sanhedrin would learn magic in order to cancel magic of those condemned to death.",
            "And in this manner, I found in the responsum of Rav Menachem, Moreh Tzedek, to learn from a magician the matters of magic in order to save himself or others.",
            "And I found for this a powerful support in the chapter “Kol Habasar” (Chullin 105b) that tells there [the story of when] Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Bar Huna were traveling on a boat, and a woman said to them, “Seat me together with you,” but they didn’t seat her with them. She said a word and the boat was tied [stuck in place]. They also said something and released it. And they all permitted that it is permitted to cancel magic with magic, and all the more so when a non-Jew does it. But on a different matter, for example just a general sick person who is not in danger, I cannot find a leniency at all. ",
            "Words of Shlomo Luria \n"
        ],
        [
            "Isaac Zeligman of Wilna, holding a grant from a Polish king to collect taxes in the city of Polotsk, agreed voluntarily (in accordance with a decision reached by a court of arbitration in Wilna, in the year 1545 or 1555) to allow his partner Jonah a quarter interest in the royal grant. In consideration thereof, Jonah agreed to pay fifty <i>shok,</i> and produce sureties within thirty days to guarantee timely payment of the taxes to be collected by him. Accordingly, Jonah sent an agent with fifty shok, but Zeligman now sought to withdraw from the agreement. He disregarded the decision of the Jewish court and refused to accept the money.",
            "The settlement of the court of arbitration had not been accompanied by <i>kinyan</i>. The arbiters now sent the case to Luria and asked him:",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is the decision of the court of arbitration binding on Isaac Zeligman although it was made without <i>kinyan?</i></b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Kinyan is necessary to bind the decision of a court of arbiters only in cases of compulsory arbitration when the parties are forced to an agreement through an outside agency, or when arbitration is offered by the judges of the court instead of a <i>Din Torah</i>. But when arbitration has been agreed upon before by both litigants voluntarily, kinyan is not essential to make the decision binding.",
            "Therefore, since Isaac Zeligman agreed to the decision of the court of his free will, the decision is binding and final."
        ],
        [
            "A death occurred on hol ha-moed Sukkot. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Is Shemini Azeret counted as seven days into the <i>sheloshim?</i></b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although Shemini Azeret does not annul the <i>shibah,</i> it is counted as seven days into the <i>sheloshim</i>."
        ],
        [
            "In the city of Padua, Italy, the ritual bath house of the Jewish community was placed in the yard of the synagogue, and the women going there before dark were exposed to the view and comments of the loiterers. For it was not customary for women to go to the synagogue for evening prayers. The more discreet women would postpone their obligatory immersions until Saturday night. Judah, and then his son Abraham Minz, ordered that the women go to cleanse and wash their hair preparatory to immersion by night rather than at twilight. This was based on a precedent. In the early part of the thirteenth century Eleazar ben Judah of Worms established a custom that, for the sake of chastity, women should conceal their immersion from their neighbors. Meir of Padua and his son Judah, as each held the rabbinic post in Padua, upheld this reform by declaring it permissible for the women to take the ritual bath at night. ",
            "Contrary to all the facts mentioned, another rabbi of Padua, in the absence of Judah, delivered a lecture before the women in which he opposed this and warned them that night cleansing would not render them ritually clean to cohabit with their husbands, so that the children of a cohabitation after such a cleansing would be bastards. <small>(This controversy reached Moses Isserles, who on Judah's request sent it to Luria for adjudication.)</small>",
            "<br>Q. 1. Is there any ground for Rabbi Meir of Padua and his son Judah upholding this custom?<br>2. Would the children born of a cohabitation which took place after such night cleansing be bastards?",
            "<i>A</i>. 1. This custom was properly upheld. The custom of going to the bath house by day rather than at night was instituted by, the women themselves, in order that they be able to do their cleansing and the washing of their hair more properly (the bath houses were poorly illuminated at night). But now, since it is detrimental for them to go there by day, the custom of going at night is preferable.",
            "2. The statement of the rabbi that children of such cohabitation would be bastards was certainly made by error. For, according to the law the child of a <i>nidah</i> is not a bastard, although it holds an inferior position in Israel.",
            "I would advise the rabbi that he retract his words and acknowledge his mistake in the very place where he delivered his first lecture, and apologize to Judah for opposing in his absence a custom which his father and other rabbis, before his father, had instituted."
        ],
        [
            "A villager redeemed his first born son on the thirtieth day of his birth instead of the thirty-first day. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Does the father have to redeem his son on the thirty-first day again, although he has already given the money to the Kohen on the thirtieth?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. No. The son is redeemed; for if the father did not definitely specify that he meant to redeem his son on the very day he gave the money to the Kohen, we take it for granted that he meant that the redemption of his son should take place on the proper day, on the thirty-first day of his birth."
        ],
        [
            "In 1553 the congregation of Ostrog had forgotten to buy an ethrog for Sukkot. Some people of the congregation, however, became aware of the fact shortly before Sukkot and they sent a messenger to the next city to procure one. The messenger returned Friday two hours before sundown with the ethrog and palm, but without the necessary myrtle, and Saturday was the first day of Sukkot. The congregation was about to send a gentile to the neighboring Jewish community to obtain myrtle, though it be of last year, in order to be able to carry out the ceremony of handling the lulab at the Sunday morning services.",
            "Luria, however, would not allow them to send the gentile because of the rule of <i>shebut</i>. In this case, he said, the rule of <i>shebut</i> could not be put off in favor of the ordinance to perform the ceremony of the festive wreath. For the ceremony of the festive wreath on the second day of Sukkot in any place, even in the territory of Palestine excepting Jerusalem, is only a rabbinic ordinance.",
            "Sunday morning, the second day of Sukkot, Luria ordered the cantor to wave the lulab at the proper time of the services, in order that the law of lulab be remembered by the people of the congregation, but without saying the necessary benediction. Sunday night, the third night of Sukkot, he sent a messenger for the myrtle, and on the following morning told the congregation to say the benediction <i>shehehianu,</i> since <i>shehehianu</i> is said even in connection with precepts not mentioned in the five books of Moses, such as the lighting of the Hanukah candles, and the reading of Esther on Purim."
        ],
        [
            "One vowed to fast on the anniversary of the death of his father.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Must he fast the whole day when the anniversary occurs on a Friday?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. If the fast of the first anniversary of the death occurred on a Friday and he did not complete the full day of fasting, then he need not complete the subsequent fasts when they fall on Fridays. But if the first fast fell on any other day, and he fasted the whole day, then he has to fast full days on the succeeding anniversaries of the death, even when they fall on Fridays."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permitted on the Sabbath to chase after chickens in the house in order to catch them?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. It is permitted to catch chickens on the Sabbath in the house, but it is not allowed to run after them in a large yard in order to catch them."
        ],
        [
            "A husband brought an accusation of immorality against his wife before Chief Rabbi Abraham and his court of justice. The court ordered both parties not to appeal the case to any other court, in order to avoid any further altercations between the families, to which both parties consented.",
            "The wife's father, however, procured witnesses of a suspicious character, and in the absence of his son-in-law brought counter-charges before the court of a local rabbi to discredit and dishonor his son-in-law and his entire family. He accused the father, Simon Gunsberg, of having lived with the mother before marriage, and since unmarried girls were not enjoined by law to take the ritual bath, the son was conceived by an \"unclean\" woman and was therefore a bastard. He furthermore caused them great harm by informing the government against them. He even sought to avenge himself upon Rabbi Abraham, before whom his son-in-law had brought the accusations against his daughter, by informing the government against him.",
            "Mendel, the district rabbi, then asked Luria:",
            "<i>Q</i>. 1) Is the decision of the local rabbi to be considered? <br>2) What punishment should be meted out to the informer?",
            "<i>A</i>. 1) No, the decision of the local rabbi cannot be honored.",
            "a) A Jewish court is not permitted to receive statements of witnesses in the absence of the accused, especially in a case like this, which concerns the virtue and uprightness of a family, unless the accused deliberately failed to appear before the court when summoned. <br>b) Both parties were prohibited by the first court of justice from making further appeals. <br>c) The witnesses were found to be perjured.",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "2) I would have allowed the husband's family to take the life of the informer, if need be, to save themselves. But, in my opinion, the wife's father was merely acting to save the honor of his daughter and not with the intention of causing any damage to his son-in-law and his family. Therefore, he could not be regarded as an informer in the strict sense of the word, and should not be dealt with as such. But he must pay for all the damages he has done. He should save the honor of Rabbi Abraham at any price, even if this cost him his entire fortune, and humbly apologize to the rabbi for disgracing him in the eyes of the city officials, and definitely accept his decision."
        ],
        [
            "",
            "",
            "A slanderous rumor was circulated about their mother's family, to the injury of the reputation of Bezalel's sons, Hayyim, Leib, Sinai, and Simon, who were about to be ordained as rabbis. A number of prominent men were disturbed by this rumor and they asked Luria:<br><b><i>Q</i>. Is there any ground to this rumor?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. My grandfather, Isaac Klauberia, who was a relative of and well acquainted with the family in question, respected it greatly and never told me anything disreputable concerning it. Therefore, I regard this rumor vicious, and am prepared to put a ban on anyone who will continue to circulate it."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May the Omer be counted on Friday right after Kiddush, if the latter was said in the synagogue before sunset? </b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The Omer must always be counted after sunset only."
        ],
        [
            "Abraham ben Solomon ha-Levi of Poland, having deserted his wife Sarah, daughter of Hayyim ha-Levi, and his seven year old son, migrated to Plevno, Turkey; and there he wished to divorce her. Rabbi Eliezer of Nikopol wrote the bill of divorce on condition that he appease the woman with a certain amount of money. But he did not fulfill this condition. He sent the bill by a man named Isaac, who traveled from Palestine to Poland, even without payment of the ketubah. On this ground she refused to accept it. The husband then hired an unscrupulous person from Poland to deliver the bill of divorce to his wife and force her to accept it against her will. The messenger failed in his mission, but he forged the name of Luria, together with the names of the heads of his community, on a document which stated that Sarah, Abraham's wife, had received the divorce. This he brought to the husband. On the strength of the forged document the authorities of Plevno permitted Abraham to marry a second time.",
            "When Luria heard, from some Turkish Jews, of this outrageous act, he immediately wrote to the rabbis of Plevno to take steps to separate Abraham from his second wife, until he had divorced the first one. Luria asserted that the man, being a native of Poland, was bound by the law of monogamy, according to the herem of Rabbenu Gershon. Although the herem did not prevail in Turkey, it was still in force in Poland. He further maintained that since the first wife had said that she would not live with him any longer because he had proved unfaithful to her, it was their duty to force him to give her another bill of divorce, together with the payment of the ketubah or such other money as she might claim."
        ],
        [
            "A man on his deathbed made an oral will in favor of his minor children, and appointed two executors to administer the property after his death. He told the executors in the presence of two witnesses A and B: \"Let it be known that one of you should not administer the property without the advice of the other.\"",
            "When the man died one of the executors sold the chattels at a price much below the market value, without the consent and knowledge of the other. Objections were raised and the case was brought to the court of justice. Upon examining the witnesses as to the meaning of the will, A testified that the testator had stipulated that neither of the executors could manage the property without consulting the other. B, on the contrary, interpreted the phrase \"Let it be known\" as spoken by the testator to imply only a word of counsel and not an obligation. The case was then sent to Luria.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Had one of the executors the right to handle the property independently of the other?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Any stipulation in a will must be accepted in the strict meaning of its words or terms, especially in the will of a dying person. Hence:",
            "1. The wording of the will in question indicates an imperative order rather than advice. <br>2. Common sense dictates that the man on his deathbed would not think of giving advice to the executors but only of protecting his children. <br>3. One witness testified that the intention of the testator was to bind the executors so that neither of them should administer the estate without the consent of the other.",
            "Therefore neither one of the executors had the right to sell the chattels without the consent of the other, even for the benefit of the orphans, and the sale must be revoked. Failing to do so, the executor is liable for all losses the beneficiaries under the will have sustained.",
            "A well-to-do man presented a <i>Sefer Torah</i> to a synagogue, as this was the ordinary custom of prosperous people. The man made no reservations; he did not indicate at the time that he was giving it only temporarily. And while the Sefer Torah was in the care of the synagogue he never mentioned that it belonged to him. The officers of the synagogue treated it as congregational property. They covered it with mantles purchased with public money. However, the Sefer Torah retained his name, as many others bore the names of their donors. Many years later, after the donor's death, his sons, who had moved to another locality, desired to remove the Sefer Torah to their new residence. The majority of the congregation, being ignorant of the law, agreed to the removal. They based their consent on the precedent of a similar case. Some members of the synagogue, however, sent the question to Luria.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Have the sons the right to remove the Sefer Torah from the synagogue?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. They have no right to remove the Sefer Torah from the synagogue for the following reasons:",
            "1. An act done by one person does not constitute a custom, and does not establish a precedent. Even a custom or practice of the people which has not the approval of learned authorities, particularly if it has not its roots in the law, does not take precedence over the law. Therefore, the fact that a man once removed a Sefer Torah from a synagogue is no precedent.",
            "2. Since the Sefer Torah is in possession of the synagogue, the sons have no right to remove it without having first produced evidence that their father did not give it to the synagogue in perpetuity.",
            "3. The officers of the synagogue treated the Sefer Torah as congregational property because they considered it such.",
            "4. When their father presented the Sefer Torah to the synagogue he did not reserve any right to remove it. This is prima facie evidence that he intended it to remain in the possession of the synagogue permanently. Hence even he himself could not have removed it from the synagogue. Therefore, his sons can not remove it either, because they cannot claim a right which the donor could not have claimed for himself."
        ],
        [
            "A father stipulated in his will that his daughter and her husband should have the right to live in his house all their lives, as they had during his lifetime. While the father was living the daughter did not contribute anything toward the upkeep of the house. But after her father's death the heirs demanded her share for the running expenses of the house, and she refused to contribute. Some time later she sought to move to a different house, rent her rooms to a tenant, and collect the rent for herself; but her brothers refused to permit her prospective tenants to live with them in the house.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. 1. Could the daughter be forced by law to contribute towards the upkeep of the house?</b>",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. 2. Would she be entitled to the rent if she moved and rented her rooms to a tenant?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. 1. Since the daughter did not contribute anything towards the upkeep of the house while her father was living, she cannot be compelled to contribute to it now, because he stipulated in his will that she should live there under the same conditions as during his lifetime. Words or terms used in a will must be strictly construed in their accepted sense.",
            "<i>A</i>. <i>2</i>. It is assumed that her father gave her the rooms only to live therein, in order to save her the trouble of moving elsewhere, but not to rent them to other people, and thus possibly, through undersirable neighbors, cause inconvenience to his sons. Therefore if she moved out of the house she would not be entitled to the rent.",
            "This question was submitted to Luria by Moses Isserles, who held with Luria that the daughter did not have to contribute towards the upkeep of the house, because the custom of the country was that a daughter who received an apartment upon her marriage as gift from her father was freed from supplying anything towards its upkeep. But he differed with Luria in regard to the rent. According to Isserles, the daughter had the right to rent her apartment to another and collect the money for herself, because her father in making the gift had not intended to restrict it to personal occupancy, but for use to the best of her advantage."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is a female of an unknown father allowed to be married to a kohen?</b><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the tone and style of the responsum it is apparent that this question as well as the question in Responsum XVI was submitted to Luria by Moses Isserles. See Responsum LXI by Moses Isserles.</i>",
            "<i>A</i>. If upon investigation, the mother affirmed that she had cohabited with a Jew, she and the daughter are allowed to marry priests, even in cities where Jews form a minority. In cities were Jews form a majority, she and the daughter are allowed to marry priests even when it is not known with whom she cohabited. But in cities where the gentiles form the majority, and no investigation has been made with regard to the identity of the father, neither the mother nor the daughter should be allowed to marry priests. Should either of them already be married to a kohen, however, she need not be divorced."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Do the Jewish merchants who come to the fairs of Lublin, and as a matter of course fail to participate in the erub, curtail the right of Jewish settlers there to carry things on the Sabbath within the city limits?</b>",
            "Moses Isserles, who asked the question, was inclined to allow this, because he held that visitors, before they have stayed in the city thirty days, cannot curtail the right of the citizens; and the merchants who come to Lublin to the fairs do not stay there for thirty consecutive days.",
            "<i>A</i>. Luria, on the other hand, ruled that the Jewish merchants who come to the fairs of Lublin do curtail the rights of the Jews living there permanently, because people who come to a place regularly have the rights of citizens and not of visitors. And the Jewish merchants come regularly to the fairs of Lublin. Even two merchants living in two houses facing one yard must have an erub in order to enjoy the right of carrying things on the Sabbath in the yard."
        ],
        [
            "Moses ben Eleazer bought a ring from a gentile, knowing it to be stolen, and pledged it with Gershon of Neustadt, informing him of the theft. Gershon then sold the ring to a nobleman, who, upon recognizing it, informed the authorities. To save himself, Gershon told the authorities that he had bought the ring from Moses. As a consequence Moses had to leave his family and flee the city to save his life.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What punishment should be meted out to Gershon?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Inasmuch as Gershon had no right to sell the ring without the consent of the pledgor or the permission of the court, Gershon must pay all damages suffered by Moses, clear him before the authorities, so as to make it safe for him to return home, and also beg Moses for forgiveness. Gershon, however, should not be regarded as an informer, since he did not act in malice, but only in self-defense."
        ],
        [
            "In the city of Brest, Lithuania, Isaac the <i>Shohet,</i> who was also cantor, inadvertently sold a part of a kosher lamb to a gentile and a terefah one to a Jew. Luria, satisfied that it was but a slip, decided that Isaac could not be disqualified as shohet on this ground.",
            "A certain faction opposed to Luria then convened a <i>bet-din</i> with Rabbi Abraham as head, and in Luria's absence passed judgment upon Isaac that he was not to be trusted to act as shohet any longer. The congregation then pleaded with Isaac to serve as cantor only. It was before the high holidays. Isaac consented to officiate as cantor only, with the understanding that on Luria's return they would send him the minutes of the bet-din to review their decision.",
            "When Luria returned, however, Rabbi Abraham and his faction declined to submit their decision to Luria for review. Moreover, immediately after the Sukkot festivals had passed, they did not allow Isaac to conduct the services at the synagogue even as cantor, on the allegation that he was not acceptable to the congregation.",
            "Some members of the congregation regarded the act of discharging Isaac as cantor even more wrongful than that of disqualifying him as shohet, and they urged Rabbi Abraham to submit the case to Luria. Rabbi Abraham, however, maintained the justice of his decision, and refused to submit the case. In order to prove himself just, Rabbi Abraham tried to besmirch Isaac's character by relating certain unbecoming events in Isaac's career as shohet. However, when he failed to convince Luria that no injustice had been done to Isaac, especially concerning his discharge as cantor, Abraham admitted that Isaac had not forfeited the confidence of the congregation sufficiently to disqualify him as cantor. Yet, he said, he himself could not reverse his decision without first consulting his party, but he promised that on the next day he would send Luria the decision of the bet-din. But Rabbi Abraham sent a delegation to Luria instead of the minutes, and at the same time his faction closed the synagogue. A few days later, a local official (probably Rabbi Abraham's father)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ir Tehilah, p. 25.</i> ordered them to reopen the synagogue, and told them: \"Let the house of God not be closed; and as for the cantor, let the rabbis of Lithuania decide whether or not he is fit to continue the services at the synagogue.\" Thereupon they submitted the minutes of their decision to Luria.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. 1. Could the congregation disqualify Isaac as shohet?</b>",
            "2. Could the congregation discharge Isaac as cantor?",
            "<i>A</i>. 1. The congregation has the right to disqualify Isaac as their shohet because he himself agreed thereto.",
            "2. The congregation cannot dismiss him as cantor, even if they offer him a full year's salary, unless he is really not acceptable to the entire congregation. In case the entire congregation objects to having the services conducted by Isaac, he should be paid his salary until the end of the year, according to the terms of his contract."
        ],
        [
            "Solomon, a physician in Kazimierz, a town adjacent to Cracow, had a sister-in-law who was engaged to a young man named Abraham Braunshweig. Subsequent to the engagement, Abraham gave his bride several gifts, in accordance with the custom of the place. Thereafter, the girl jilted him. The bridegroom then proclaimed that the presents were understood to constitute legitimate betrothal, the termination of which requires regular divorce proceedings.",
            "Solomon brought the case before the rabbinic authorities of Cracow, with a plea that his sister-in-law be given permission to marry another man. Of the two witnesses who testified with regard to the intention and manner in which the presents were given to the girl, one affirmed the young man's claim while the other one denied it. The local rabbis hesitated whether or not to allow the girl to marry another man. Then, with a letter from Moses Isserles in which he described the case, Solomon proceeded to Luria, in Lublin, for his opinion.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is Abraham's claim, affirmed by one witness, that his bridal presents constituted betrothal, valid or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Bridal presents cannot be regarded as constituting betrothal, because the general custom permits girls to receive gifts from their fiances before betrothal. And the one witness, who by his testimony affirmed Abraham's declaration that he gave her the presents with betrothal in his mind, is not sufficient, according to the law, to prohibit her from marrying another man.",
            "Therefore, the girl is free to marry any man, even a relative of Abraham.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">*</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Biblically a man is not allowed to marry certain of his wife’s relatives, and vice versa.</i> Abraham, on the other hand, having announced that he was married to the girl, should not be allowed to marry any of her near relatives. He may, however, marry any other woman, for his declaration did not place him under the herem of Rabbenu Gershon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">**</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The herem of Rabbenu Gershon forbade men to marry more than one wife, but since the herem was not intended to prevent any man from begetting children, which is a biblical command, the herem would not hold in this case.</i> But the authorities of his community have the right to punish him even to the extent of not allowing him to marry at all, if necessary."
        ],
        [
            "A childless widow in Poland, where levirate marriages were practiced, did not wish to become the wife of the brother of her deceased husband. She chose to go through the ceremony of <i>halizah</i> and be free to marry someone else. But the <i>yabam</i> refused to free her by halizah, because he did desire her hand in marriage. She was then advised by a scholar to bring the yabam before a bet-din on some pretext, and while there, spit into his face in the presence of the members of the bet-din. Such an act, according to the scholar, would render the levirate marriage prohibitory and the yabam would then be forced to free her by halizah.",
            "The widow followed the advice of the scholar, and subsequently the court obliged the yabam to go through the halizah ceremony. After the act was performed the court freed the widow to marry whomsoever she liked.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is a halizah performed in such a way valid?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Spitting at the yabam without his consent does not render the levirate marriage prohibitory, and the court had no right to force the halizah upon him. When both parties agree with their free will not to marry, then the widow can be free to marry another man by halizah. But the halizah must have the consent of both of them and it must be performed without any fabrication, or else it is a forced halizah and not valid. However, no court would annul a fictitious halizah even if performed under false premises, when the yabam is not willing to marry his brother's childless widow and yet refuses, for one reason or another, to free her by halizah.",
            "On the other hand, a halizah consented to by the yabam, worthy of his brother's widow and willing to marry her, because of a deception, must be declared void, for this is a forced halizah. Hence the widow cannot marry any other man, and if she is already married she must be divorced, until the yabam is willing to go through the same ceremony of halizah a second time of his free will.",
            "The scholar who gave the widow this cunning advice needs to ask for forgiveness."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permissible to use any kind of beverage for the cup at the grace after meals?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Yes, but only when wine or beer is not obtainable. Yet this information should be kept from the public, lest they make of it a general rule and apply it even when these beverages are procurable."
        ],
        [
            "A man named Hillel of Lublin, failing after several years in his endeavor to marry the widow Idil, circulated a report that he had betrothed her in the absence of witnesses. The widow strenuously denied the rumor. He then started to molest her, causing her trouble in her business, whereby she suffered great damage.",
            "To get rid of his importunities she agreed to accept a divorce from him, which he was willing to grant on condition that she give him a certain amount of money. But before she deposited the promised sum with the trustee, to be delivered to Hillel upon receipt of her divorce, she protested in the presence of two witnesses that the whole affair was nothing but a device to extort money from her. Then, when he gave her the bill of divorce, she did not permit the trustee to hand the money over until the case was decided by a Jewish court. The case was then brought before the court of Joseph Kohen; but before its decision was pronounced, friends of the widow, who wanted to know Luria's opinion in the matter, sent him the case in Ostrog. This occurred in the year 1551.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is the protest of the widow to be rejected or sustained?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although I have not heard the claim of the other party and it is not proper for a judge to respond to a question or to pass an opinion in money matters before hearing the claims of both litigants, and especially in a case which is under the advisement of a competent court, yet since widows and orphans are entitled to special consideration I shall advise the court, not in the capacity of judge, but as a mere friend of the widow, to find the verdict in her favor. Even if the court has already heard the claims of the other party, it still has the right to accept my opinion if it finds it acceptable. <small>(Response continues in the following responsum.)</small>"
        ],
        [
            "<small>(Continuation from previous responsum)</small> <br>First, however, I shall decide whether she has the right to remarry, although I was not asked to give my opinion on this point, because that question is more important than the monetary matter. <br>The widow, according to the law, is allowed to marry even a Kohen, although she did not fulfill the condition upon which the bill of divorce was granted to her; because the divorce, under the circumstances, has no more effect upon the widow than a divorce upon an unmarried woman. But taking into consideration that the people regard her as a divorced woman, because the bill was written by a competent rabbi who would not have written it without substantial ground, she should not marry a Kohen, in order to avoid evil talk. However, she is allowed to marry an Israelite even if the report of Hillel that he betrothed her was true, because he cannot annul the bill of divorce on her failure to fulfill the condition of paying him the money. All conditions made in connection with a bill of divorce are annulled by the court prior to the writing of the bill.",
            "Her protest, concerning the money placed with the trustee, should be sustained. And if the knavery of the man was known to the trustee he may return the money to her even without the order of the court. His reputation as trustee will not suffer by it, for he too is obliged to give aid against violence. But if he did not know the circumstances under which the woman deposited the money with him, he should wait for the order of the court to return the money to her."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. While one was cleansing a vessel ritually, the water in the boiler ceased boiling. Can the same water still be used for the same purpose when it starts boiling again?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Yes, it may be used."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May one change a shirt on the Sabbath preceding the Ninth of Ab?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Yes, it is permissible; for no mourning that can be noticed by the public is allowed on the Sabbath. Furthermore, changing shirts does not mean changing clothes, as shirts are often changed in Poland in the middle of the week, because of perspiration."
        ],
        [
            "Someone spread a malicious rumor about a certain man, that he had slept with his own married sister in one bed and bathed with her in one bathtub.",
            "This terrible accusation was brought to the notice of Rabbi Meir of Padua, Italy, who in turn consulted the opinion of Moses Isserles, and expressed his wish that the latter obtain Luria's opinion in the matter. Isserles then sent the case to Luria and asked him:",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What punishment ought to be inflicted upon this malicious slanderer?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. According to talmudic law, he would deserve the corporal punishment of the \"forty lashes\" four times over, twice for accusing the man of incest with a woman that is his sister and married, and twice again for accusing the woman of incest and adultery, which should be inflicted in the synagogue after the <i>minhah</i> services on Mondays and Thursdays during two consecutive weeks. ",
            "But since we are now unable to enforce the law of the forty lashes because of the fear of informers— the forty lashes now practiced is nothing more than a ceremony—therefore I would suggest, first, that a fine of eight gold <i>Rhinish</i> should be substituted for the lashes, plus court expenses. Second, that he should come to the synagogue during the services clothed in black, and confess his guilt while holding two black lighted candles in his hands, and ask for forgiveness from God and from the people in question; the hazan of the congregation should at the same time announce that this slanderer begs for pardon.",
            "Should the slanderer not submit to this punishment, he should be put under a ban."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What is the genealogical order of the geonim and the authors who are known to us by their works?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. I have no definite knowledge as to their genealogical order, yet anybody who reads their books can discover their genealogy by the style of their writings and by the controversies that took place at their respective times.",
            "The following are my findings:",
            "Meshullam I <br>Ithiel I <br>Meshullam II <br>Moses I <br>Jekuthiel I <br>Kalonymus I <br>Moses ha-Zaken II<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">*</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Author of <i>Emat Noroteka</i>; Moses emigrated to Germany with King Charles in 1089, from Lucca, Italy.</i><br>Hananeel Ithiel II Kalonymus II Jekuthiel of Speyer II <br>Meshullam ha-Gadol III <br>Elijah ha-Zaken<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Author of Azharot Emet Yehegeh Hiki.</i> <br>Simon of Le Mans<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Author of Azharot Atah Hinhaltah</i><br>Joseph ha-Zaken <br>Isaac HasidAbin ha-Gadol<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not lineal descendant.</i><br>Kalonymus ha-Zaken IIIIsaac HasidJoshua Hasid <br>Samuel Hasid<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Luria calls him holy man and prophet.</i>Simon ha-Gadol <br>Judah Hasid of SpeyerAbraham<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both were exiled to Regensburg.</i> of Speyer <br>Sherira Gaon transmitted the law to his son Hai Gaon (born 956), who was last of the geonim. <br>Rabbenu Gershon Meor ha-Golah (died 1040), Rabbenu Hananeel, and Elijah ha-Zaken, who was brother-in-law of Hai Gaon and brother of Jekuthiel, received the traditional law from Hai Gaon and from Jekuthiel. <br>Rabbenu Hananeel transmitted the law to Isaac Al-fasi, Nathan Baal he-Aruk, who was a disciple of Gershon and teacher of Rashi, and Isaac ben Menahem. The latter is buried at Orleans. <br>Their contemporaries were Eliezer ha-Gadol, Simon ha-Gadol of Mayence, Solomon ha-Babli, and his father Kalonymus of Lucca.<br>Their disciples were the great scholars of Lorraine, Gershon of Metz; Jacob ha-Zaken ben Yakar, who was Rashi's teacher and author of \"Titnem le-Herpah u-Kelalah\" against a decree of 1086 to eradicate the Jews; Isaac ben Judah, known as Moreh Zedek, also teacher of Rashi; Isaac ha-Levi, known as Segan Lewiyah of Worms, another of Rashi's teachers; and Kalonymus of Rome. <br>Their predecessors were Abraham ha-Kohen, author of <i>Birkat Hatanim;</i> Judah ha-Kohen, author of <i>Sefer ha-Dinin;</i> Benjamin ha-Payyetan ben Samuel; and Meir Shatz. <br>Rashi (1040-1105) was succeeded by his grandson Samuel ben Meir, known as Rashbam, who in turn was followed by his brother Jacob, known as Rabbenu Tam. The latter was succeeded by his sister's son Isaac of Dampierre, known as Ri, whose post was later filled by Isaac ben Abraham of Ramerupt. After Isaac came Judah of Paris (died 1124), Samson of Sens, Isaac of Dampierre, Solomon of Troyes, and Eliezer of Sezanne. <br>Judah of Paris was followed by Jehiel of Paris, Judah of Melun, Samuel of Troyes, Jacob of Orleans, Cresbia of Dreux, Nathanel of Chinon, and Moses of Evreux. <br>Eliakim ha-Levi, father-in-law of Isaac ben Asher ha-Levi of Speyer, known as Riba, was Rashi's colleague. Jacob ben Isaac Segan Lewiyah, known as Rabbenu Yabez, and Eliakum ben Joseph (of Mayence) were Rashi's contemporaries. <br>Eliezer ben Nathan, known as Reban, author of <i>Zofnat Paneah,</i> was the son-in-law of Eliakum and pupil of Rabbenu Yabez.<br>Eliezer ben Nathan (Reban) <br>Mordecai of Cologne <br>Samuel of Bruhl <br>Joel b. Isaac ha-LeviSamuel b. Natronai (son-in-law) <br>Mordecai <br>Judah (called Liebman of Pressburg) <br>SimonUri <br>Uri was martyred in 1216. <br>Samuel ben Meir's disciples were Joseph Dinbrit (?), Jacob ben Meir Tam, and Isaac ben Asher, known as Riba. The latter came as a disciple, but soon returned to his place of origin. <br>The following were Rabbenu Tam's disciples: Joseph of Orleans, Jacob ben Baruk, Joseph Bekor Shor, Hayyim Kohen, Jacob ben Meir known as Riba, Isaac ben Jacob known as Ri ha-Laban, Isaac of Ramerupt known as Ri, Benjamin of Chinon, Isaac ben Mordecai, Eliezer of Metz, and Moses Kohen Ashkenazi. <br>The following were Rabbenu Tam's contemporaries: Rabbenu he-Hasid (?), Elijah he-Hasid of Paris, Menahem ben Perez of Joigny-Sur-Yonne, Ezekiel of Auxerre Meshullam of Melun, and Ephraim ha-Gebir (ben Isaac) of Regensburg (died about 1175). <br>The following were the disciples of Isaac of Dampierre: Moses Kohen Ashkenazi, Ezra ha-Nasi, Samson of Joinville, Samson of Sens, and his brother Isaac, Baruk ben Isaac, author of <i>Sefer ha-Terumah,</i> Judah ben Isaac of Paris, Samson of Coucy-Le-Chaleau, and Solomon of Dreux. <br>The following were Isaac's contemporaries: Shemariah of Speyer, a disciple of Isaac ben Asher (Riba) of Speyer, and Eliezer of Metz and later of Mayene. <br>Isaac ben Abraham of Ramerupt was followed by Judah of Paris, Samson of Sens, Isaac of Dampierre whose pupils were Aaron of Regensburg and Judah Kohen of Wurzburg, Solomon of Troyes, and Eliezer of Sezanne. <br>Judah of Paris was followed by Jehiel of Paris, Judah of Melun, Samuel of Troyes, Jacob of Orleans, Cresbia of Dreux, Nathaneel of Chinon, and Moses of Evreux, whose pupil was Isaac ben Samuel of Worms. <br>Their contemporaries were Samuel ben Elhanan, whose disciple was Isaac Hazo (?), Judah of Metz, and Samuel ben Solomon of La Rochelle. Meir (of Rothenburg) was the disciple of the latter two.<br>The following German tosafists were Isaac's contemporaries: Eliezer of Metz and of Mayence and his pupils, Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi (Abi ha-Ezri), Simhah ben Samuel, and Baruk (ben Samuel). <br>Their contemporaries were Jonathan, Eleazer of Worms, Judah he-Hasid who was the son of Rabbenu of Toul and brother of Aaron of Regensburg, and Judah. <br>The brothers of Eliezer of Metz were Meir, and David of Wurzburg. The latter's sons were Judah, author of a piyyut, and Meshullam of Wurzburg. <br>Their contemporaries were Joel ben Isaac ha-Levi and Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi.",
            "My findings, however, are incomplete. More study of the subject is required."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May one indulge in dainty milk-dishes on the eve of the Ninth of Ab, before the afternoon service, and then, for the last meal before beginning the fast, have some fruit?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. According to talmudic law only wine and meat were prohibited at the last meal before the fast. And from a ruling by Semag we learn that, about the first half of the thirteenth century, the people were accustomed to abstain from meat-dishes on the eve of the Ninth of Ab. In course of time the custom was extended to the first nine days of Ab. This custom, however, does not confine itself to meat and wine only. Nahmanides writes that on the eve of the Ninth of Ab they denied themselves even a dish of lentils.",
            "Therefore, if anyone would have his regular full meal of milk-dishes similar to those prepared in Poland on Pentecost and then start the fast on a fruit-dish, he would be considered a glutton. Milk-dishes can be prepared appetizing enough to suit the taste of a gourmand, just as meat-dishes. Learned people, especially, should not permit themselves such indulgence."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May beer be drunk at the last meal before the fast of the Ninth of Ab?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Beer in these countries is used as a substitute for wine, and since the use of wine was prohibited at the last meal on the eve of the Ninth of Ab as early as the tannaitic period, therefore beer should not be drunk either. The people who have their full meal before noon and eat only fruit at the last meal, waiting for it as people wait for their dessert, should, in particular, be more careful and not drink any beer at that time. In an age of religious persecution such as we live in now, we ought to be more strict in our religious observances. Beer, however, may be used for the cup of grace. ",
            "People who are not accustomed to drink anything else, and weaklings, may drink it before they begin the fast of the Ninth of Ab."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is <i>Zidduk ha-din</i> to be said at the funeral service on the ninth of Ab? </b>",
            "<i>A</i>. According to <i>Minhagim Yeshanim, Zidduk ha-din</i> is said on the Ninth of Ab. Although ordinarily when <i>Tahanun</i> is not said (as on the Ninth of Ab) <i>Zidduk ha-din</i> is not recited either, the Ninth of Ab is different. <i>Zidduk ha-din</i> may be said on the Ninth of Ab as well as the other lamentations, for it merely indicates an event. Rashi permitted its recitation before noon, when the other lamentations are said. A statement is made in <i>Sefer Agudah</i> in the name of Rokeah that even Tahanun may be said on the Ninth of Ab, because the Scroll of Fasts has been abolished—and historical commemorations enumerated therein are no more observed."
        ],
        [
            "In the year 1553 a certain Zeligman of Prague deserted his wife Miriam. Several years later he accused her of clandestine meetings and indecorous behavior with a male companion in a winter house and other private places. Meanwhile, a rumor was spread in the city that she had proved faithless to her husband. The charges were sustained in her absence by a court of unknown character in the city of Prague, on the ground of written evidence and the testimony of unreliable witnesses. A written transcript of the court's decision was given to Zeligman. On the strength of this document he sought to divorce her and free himself from paying the ketubah.",
            "Her father, Mordecai Katz, denied the charges against her and summoned his son-in-law to the court of Rabbi I. Sterenberg, Rabbi Isaac Stengly, and Rabbi Meir Bern, to try the case again in the presence of his daughter. But Zeligman refused to appear before these rabbis. This court then proclaimed, under the threat of a herem, that any one who knew anything concerning the rumors about Miriam's misbehavior must come and testify. The proclamation was repeated in the synagogue for thirty days in succession, but nobody came. After a lengthy quarrel the rabbinic court brought great pressure to bear upon them, until both parties agreed to bring the case to an out-of-town court. In June 1558 they came to Cracow to have the case tried before the court of Moses Isserles, and his associates Moses Landau and Josef Katz.",
            "<i>Zeligman's Testimony before the Court of Moses Isserles:</i> About five or six years ago I requested my mother-in-law to forbid the freedom of her house to a certain man, I shall call him X, who frequently visited my wife. My mother-in-law, however, ignored my entreaty, whereupon I moved with my wife to another house. This, nevertheless, did not prevent my wife from meeting X again. I saw her once walking along Tanner Street, with another woman carrying a bowl full of cakes, in the company of X. Although enraged at the spectacle, I controlled myself and under the most difficult restraint asked her to go home. I tried to regain my peace during the rest of the day, but failed, and I left her the same day. About two years ago I was inclined to effect a reconciliation with her, but I was informed that she was faithless to me. I, then, declared her <i>unclean</i> and have not come near her since. <br>Did you notice anything about your wife that could be construed as infidelity? <br>No, I did not see anything, except that I met her once in the winter house lying on a bench in the presence of X. But I certainly believe that she was faithless to me, for I was told so much concerning her bad behavior with X. I then brought the case before a bet-din in the city of Prague. The bet-din found her guilty and gave me the right to divorce her. <br>Who told you that your wife was faithless to you? <br>I don't know, but the court will soon find out from the papers I brought along with me.",
            "Zeligman presents documentary evidence of two witnesses A and B, who testified for him before the bet-din in the city of Prague, and the judgment of the bet-din which allowed him to divorce his wife. ",
            "",
            "I saw X and Miriam on a bench lying one upon the other. X became embarrassed and moved away from her when he saw me. I thought for a moment that she was a gentile woman, but to my astonishment she was Miriam. ",
            "I found them together. I saw X and Miriam on the floor lying together one upon the other.",
            "<i>Zeligman now presents new evidence:</i> I, Solomon ben Eliezer Zelkind, saw Miriam and Simon's daughter walking along Tanner Street accompanied by X. Simon's daughter carried a bowl of cakes. Zeligman, her husband, met her there and scolded her. X ran away. Zeligman then told his wife to go home, but she kept on walking until she met X again, and in a moment both of them disappeared from view. <i>Signed:</i> S<small>OLOMON BEN</small> E<small>LIEZER</small> Z<small>ELKIND</small>",
            "Once I was told by Letsel that Miriam was upstairs in her room with X, eating two kinds of fish and drinking wine. I walked up the stairs to join them, but I found the door locked. I heard them talking in the room and I knocked at the door but they did not let me in. <i>Signed:</i> S<small>OLOMON BEN</small> E<small>LIEZER</small> Z<small>ELKIND</small>",
            "On my way home I saw Miriam in the darkness of the night standing with X at the door of his house, in a position that shocked my sense of decency and made me avert my eyes. He had embraced her with one arm and placed his other hand under her underwear. I felt very sorry about it and when I came home I told it to my wife. This happened about the fifth of the month of Adar, about six o'clock in the evening.<i>Signed:</i> S<small>OLOMON BEN</small> E<small>LIEZER</small> Z<small>ELKIND</small>",
            "<i>Zeligman then presents two witnesses in person</i>. <br>I saw X leaving Miriam's house before dawn and the door of the house was locked before he left. <br>I saw X lying on Miriam.",
            "<i>In conclusion, Zeligman made the following statement: I have more witnesses, but I cannot find them now</i>.",
            "Mordecai Katz, who represented his daughter at the trial, denied all the charges made against her. He testified that he and his son-in-law had had a disagreement about money matters, which developed into a trial, and the latter, in order to avenge himself, had deserted his daughter. Mordecai proved his testimony by presenting a legal document of the court of Prague, where the trial had taken place. Zalman Luc also testified to his presence at the trial, and that not a word was then mentioned about Miriam. They had had a controversy about money alone.",
            "Mordecai Katz continued: During the separation a rumor was spread that my daughter was faithless to her husband. The source of the rumor is still a mystery to me. My son-in-law then produced a document of some obscure court which accused her of behaving in the most licentious manner with X. I do not know who the judges of the court were. My daughter was not summoned to appear before the court. The witnesses who testified against her are known in the city to be unreliable, disreputable, and irresponsible persons. I then turned to Rabbi I. Sterenberg, to Rabbi Isaac Stengly, and to Rabbi Meir Bern, to try the case before them. But when my son-in-law was summoned, he refused to appear…. Mordecai then produced a document signed by the three rabbis of the court that Zeligman had refused to appear upon a summons before their court. <br>Did the court that convicted your wife serve her with a summons? <br>No, it did not serve her with any summons. <br>Why did the court not serve her? <br>Because she lost her right to defend herself on account of her father. He exercised so much influence in the city that everybody feared him, and no witness would dare to testify in her presence. Therefore I tried the case in her absence. <br>Why did you refuse to appear before the court of Rabbi Sterenberg, Rabbi Isaac Stengly, and Rabbi Meir Bern? <br>For the same reason I stated before. I thought that no court would venture to convict her in her presence.",
            "<i>The defense presents witnesses to disqualify the testimony of A and B:</i> A informed the government against the leaders of the city of Prague while they were assembled in their meeting-place. <br>While the leaders of the community of Prague were meeting at their headquarters, A informed the government against them. (Witness II delivered his testimony in the absence of Zeligman, because the latter had left for Prague.) <br>A threatened to inform the government on certain people and to kill them. (A number of witnesses testified to the same thing.) <br>A swears all the time. He blasphemed the name of God many times and always mentions the name of other gods. <br>Stolen books were found in B's house. <br>B stole from me many times. One stolen article I found at the goldsmith's who bought it from him. <br>I remember that years ago when I was still a minor B stole things from my father. <br>My landlord told me that B is a suspicious character and a thief.",
            "<i>The defense produces evidence that Zeligman was looking for false witnesses:</i> Zeligman has been running after me for a long time, and he offered me a note of ten dollars in order to testify that I saw his wife in X's house, and there they…. He told me that he had secured many signatures from witnesses to this effect, and asked me to sign the same paper. When I looked at the paper I noticed all the names were of the same handwriting. I refused to sign it.",
            "<i>The defense produces testimony to refute the evidence offered by the plaintiff</i>: During my sickness Zeligman paid me a visit. He left four dollars on the table and said: \"Take the four dollars and buy yourself jewelry, and when you get well testify for me.\" When I recovered from my illness I returned the four dollars. Shortly after that I planned to move to another place; his brother-in-law sent for me and asked me to give him the testimony asked for by Zeligman in writing. At first I refused, but when he told me that he would not return the pledges I had pawned with him I changed my mind and wrote down everything he dictated! But I think that my testimony will not do him any good, because I gave it to him in the absence of any court. <i>Signed:</i> S<small>OLOMON BEN</small> <small>ELIEZER</small> Z<small>ELKIND</small>",
            "They wanted that my wife too should testify for them but since she did not know Miriam at all, they pleaded with her to say that everything I wrote was true. <i>Signed:</i> S<small>OLOMON BEN</small> E<small>LIEZER</small> Z<small>ELKIND</small>",
            "If I would want to sin, I could have made a lot of money; Zeligman wanted to hire me as a witness. Zeligman was running after me for weeks in succession, offering me money to persuade my wife to testify that she saw Miriam and X misbehaving. But I refused to sell my soul for money.",
            "The testimony of all the witnesses exhibited by the defense is no ground to disqualify A and B as witnesses, because they were not present when the evidence against them was given. <br>If reliable witnesses would have testified before a competent court in the presence of his wife to the same charges as those of A and B, Zeligman would have been justified in divorcing her. Although the evidence speaks of indecency and not of infidelity, and although the evidence is divided, the court would have recognized the charges as sufficient ground for a divorce even without the payment of the ketubah. The objection raised by Zeligman in his rebuttal against the testimony of the defense would then be sustained by this court. Under the circumstances, however, it is obligatory to reject Zeligman's plea for the following reasons.",
            "First, if Zeligman were right in his rebuttal that the testimony against A and B ought to be annulled because it was given in their absence, then their own testimony ought to be annulled, because it was given in the absence of his wife. His declaration that no witness would have testified against her in her presence, and that no court would have convicted her under the same conditions because her father dominated the city, is known to be untrue. His own faction controlled the city of Prague at the time of the trial. Besides, he refused to appear before the court of Rabbis Sterenberg, Stengly, and Bern, who are known to be competent rabbis and who would try the case without fear or favor. Moreover, even if it were true that the city of Prague was intimidated by her father, she could not lose her right to defend herself before the law on that account.",
            "Second, in cases of matrimonial relations, where the chastity of the woman is involved, her right to live with her husband, the right of her husband to divorce her, and her right to remarry another man, the witnesses must be treated with all the rigor and scrutiny of those in capital cases. Therefore, a) since two competent witnesses testified that A and B were informers, and many more witnesses established the fact that they were known publicly as suspects and worthless individuals, which disqualifies them to act in capital cases as witnesses, they could not for the same reason act as witnesses against Miriam. Although they were not legally disqualified, and their evidence might still be taken in civil cases, their testimony against Miriam is void. b) Since they failed to indicate in their testimony the time of the alleged clandestine meeting of Miriam and X, their testimony is void. c) Since the testimony of A and that of B indicate two different acts, each attested by one witness, their evidence is split. And as it is unlawful to convict a person in a capital case on split evidence, so Miriam cannot be similarly convicted. d) Since the similarity of the wording of their testimony raises suspicion as to its validity, they should have been cross-examined: and the court having failed to do so, their evidence is void. e) Since the judges of the court (if any court was held) before whom this evidence was given are unreliable, as they did not cross-examine the witnesses, and as their signatures are illegible (they cannot be allowed to validate them now) and nobody knows who they are, the evidence is void.",
            "Third, a court is permitted to execute punishment on the basis of actual facts, though not ascertained by legal evidence. This court, therefore, is now taking the right, on the basis of all the evidence given here, to disqualify the witnesses A and B, although they are not present. And they shall from now on not be permitted to testify even in the presence of the accused, a) because they are publicly known as suspicious characters; b) because they did not honor the summons of the court even under the penalty of the herem.",
            "The court rejects the rest of the testimony produced by Zeligman:",
            "Exhibit No. I by Solomon ben Eliezer Zelkind does not imply any privacy between Miriam and X; it does not even prove indecency. a) Because he stated that he saw them in a public place.",
            "Exhibit No. II by Solomon ben Eliezer Zelkind evinces no clandestine misconduct, either. a) Because another man might have been with them in the room. b) No woman can be charged of having been closeted with a man during the time her husband is in town. c) Meeting a woman in privacy in the company of a man would not prohibit her from living with her husband, for if such were the rule no woman would be able to live with her husband.",
            "Exhibit No. III by Solomon ben Eliezer Zelkind charges Miriam with indecency, but the charge is no ground for divorce. a) He did not testify in person, and written evidence is not accepted in capital cases. b) He acknowledged, before his testimony reached the court, that he wrote the testimony under duress in order to get back his pledges, which acknowledgment annulled his testimony.",
            "Exhibit No. IV by the woman is no ground for divorce. a) Because another man might have been with them in the house that night.",
            "Exhibit No. V by the little boy is of no significance at all. a) Because children are ruled to be unreliable in capital cases.",
            "The persistent rumor about Miriam's misconduct would not prohibit Zeligman from living with her again. It is obvious that the rumor was spread by Zeligman himself, by his relatives, by the false witnesses that he solicited, and by Mordecai's enemies. His assertion that he believes in the witnesses and in the rumors, and that this, according to the law, prohibits him from living with his wife, again does not tally with the facts on hand. a) Were the witnesses of honest and reliable character, upon whose integrity Zeligman would rely in other affairs, his assertion that he believes them with regard to his wife would have to be sustained. But as a matter of fact Zeligman would not believe these suspects in anything else, therefore he cannot say that he believes their evidence against his wife. b) According to his own testimony he noticed nothing about his wife to warrant an accusation of infidelity. c) Two years ago he wanted to return to her and live with her again. d) Moreover, since that belief, according to his own statement, was based on the testimony of witnesses whose words the court has already annulled, he cannot any longer maintain that he is not permitted to live with his wife again.",
            "Zeligman has the right to live with his wife again and cannot divorce her against her free will. He could even be forced to live with her if she wished. <br>However, since this opinion has no precedent in the law, no reunion shall take place unless approved by two scholars of two different cities, each of whom heads a rabbinical school there. If neither of the litigants attempts to obtain such approval within three months, Zeligman would then have the right to divorce his wife upon the payment of her ketubah and other money promised in her dowry. The bill of divorce, no matter how delivered, would then be no forced divorce.",
            "Zeligman's statement that he has other witnesses to testify against his wife, but he does not know their whereabouts, holds the attention of the bet-din. The decision of the rabbis of Prague that any witness refusing to appear before this bet-din during this trial should not again be eligible to testify in the case, does not meet with the approval of the bet-din. If Zeligman has competent and reliable witnesses he may file a new charge at any time in the future against his wife. <br>But while the case, under present conditions, has been adjudged in favor of his wife, no single witness should appear before a bet-din to testify against her even in her presence; no witnesses should give evidence in her absence; and nobody should carry defamatory reports about her. Such acts will be regarded as slander and will be punished accordingly. If Zeligman himself will continue to disgrace her and injure her repuation he will be guilty of defaming and dishonoring the name of his own wife and will also be punished accordingly. <br>The \"judges\" who admitted the testimony in the absence of Miriam and then tried her in her absence deserve a severer punishment than merely invalidating their signatures. In other words, they ought to be treated more harshly than mere expulsion from the legal profession. But since they are not here and the bet-din cannot try them in their absence, therefore let their conscience be their own judge, and let their degradation be their recompense.The case was then referred to Luria. At the first instance he refused to review it, because he believed the Isserles court competent enough to decide it alone. But, being moved by the tears of Mordecai Katz and urged by the leaders of Lublin, he examined the case and made the following decision.",
            "I. The main evidence speaks of indecency and not of infidelity. No testimony was given that they were found nude together, hence there is no charge of adultery, according to Rashi. Rashi and Rabbenu Gershon, Rif, Rambam, Rabbenu Hananeel, and Rabbenu Tam hold that only infidelity is ground for divorce. Even according to Sheiltot, Rosh, and Rabbenu Meir, who hold that evidence of indecency in addition to a persistent evil rumor is ground for divorce, Zeligman has no claim to divorce his wife. The rumor must come from a different source and tell of different facts from those of the evidence. And this rumor was spread by the witnesses who testified to the indecency. The testimony of the woman, of the child, and of Zelkind has no significance whatsoever. Even Zelkind's exhibit III is no ground for divorce. It does not speak of a clandestine meeting at all, because there are always pedestrians in the streets of Prague, the guards are going their rounds, and the students who go home at night watch the houses and knock at the open doors.",
            "II. The evidence was given in the absence of the accused, and therefore it is invalid under any circumstances. Zeligman's plea, even if it were true, that he was forced to give the evidence in the absence of his wife, because his father-in-law controlled the city and undue influence would have been exerted upon the court, cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is true that Mordecai Katz predominated over the city at one time in the past, but not at the time of the trial. When the trial took place Zeligman's faction was administering the affairs of the community, and Mordecai was humble and submissive. One of Zeligman's witnesses even inflicted a number of blows on Mordecai in the presence of the leaders of the city; and when he was arrested, he was kept under guard for a period of four weeks without being convicted. Furthermore, Miriam could not have been denied the right to defend herself on account of her father. Zeligman's argument that the evidence affects him as much as his wife, for it prohibits him from living with her just as it prohibits her from living with him, and that since he was present at the trial the evidence should be ruled valid although she was absent, is based on no foundation. The court is not concerned in saving him for his wife or vice versa. The court is only anxious to save the good name of his wife, while his name, on the other hand, was not stigmatized by the evidence. Again, the congregation of Prague has a special ordinance not to give any testimony except in the presence of the leaders of the city, the two sextons, and the public scribe. The evidence, having been presented in violation of this ordinance, is void.",
            "III. Testimony must be given before three men who are experts in the laws of evidence. The bet-din before whom the evidence was given was not well versed in the laws of evidence. It failed to cross-examine the witnesses, as legally required. And according to the rulings of Rabbenu Tam and Rashba no sanction for a divorce can be granted without first cross-examining the witnesses. Hence Zeligman has no right to divorce his wife.",
            "IV. The lack of moral integrity of the witnesses disqualifies them from testifying in any case. They were not qualified to testify in this case, in particular, because they were proven to be Mordecai's life enemies. It was further proven that Zeligman and his relatives were soliciting false witnesses. The evidence was delivered in writing, which is accepted rabbinically in money matters only, but not in ritual cases, and especially in this case, which must be treated with the same strictness as capital cases.",
            "V. In general, Zeligman conducted the entire case in a fraudulent manner. His assertion that he is not allowed to live with his wife because he believes his witnesses, is not true. He acknowledged that he himself did not see anything indecent about her, and certainly he would not believe the false witnesses whom he himself hired. Since men cannot divorce their wives nowadays against their free will, nor have they the right to marry more than one wife because of the herem of Rabbenu Gershon, therefore they who are in love with other women turn to such deceptive practices as Zeligman did to rid themselves of their wives.",
            "Zeligman is allowed to live with his wife. The decision should be proclaimed in every synagogue."
        ],
        [
            "Jacob ben Asher (Tur) writes that his father was careful at a public meal to wash his hands last. If he would have washed them first, and waited to say the benediction for the other guests, until they finished washing, he might have diverted his attention from his hands, causing an unlawful interruption between the washing of his hands and the saying of the benediction. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Is such a practice to be followed by the heads of the congregations?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although one must not argue against a lion (scholar) after he is dead, yet I must answer the question for the sake of the law. The head of the congregation should wash his hands first and wait (although the waiting is not pleasant nor respectful) for all the other guests to wash their hands. During this time he should not engage in any needless talk, but he should answer questions on erudition. This would not constitute an interruption. On the contrary, conversations concerning the Law are required at meal time. Such behavior on the part of the ecclesiastical head would set the right kind of example for all the others to follow. For if the people washed their hands first they would engage in vanities."
        ],
        [
            "In 1547 A brought suit against B before a certain rabbi. Both A and B refused to submit their case to arbitration and asked the rabbi to decide it for them in accordance with the strict law, whereupon they signed an agreement to abide by his decision. However, B demanded that the rabbi should add two associates to try the case. The rabbi neither rejected his claim nor sustained it, but upon A's insistence he tried it alone. Thus deponed A: I held a monopoly for the sale of whiskey for a district in the neighborhood of Brest-Litovsk for a period of three years. Before the time expired, B made an attempt to obtain a franchise from the city authorities for the same monopoly. However, I succeeded in persuading the mayor and other city officials to renew my license for three more years. With the new license in my possession I warned B at the synagogue in the presence of the congregation no longer to encroach upon my rights. B, however, now convinced that he would no longer be able to do me harm through the mayor and the other city authorities, turned to the queen's secretary. The queen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Bona (Sforza)</i> then ordered the mayor and the other commissioners to revoke my license and transfer it to B for the enormous price of 80 <i>shok</i>. The commissioners executed her order and my livelihood was ruined. I now demand satisfaction as the law may justify.",
            "B, answering the charge, said: I had never even thought of competing with a Jew. But competition in this country is a national evil. Many great monopolists have practiced it. My partner and I were once outbid of the same franchise. The same is true about the farming of taxes; one buys the privilege for a certain period of time either at auction, or purchases it through the mayor if the latter is well bribed. Then, usually, another bidder comes along, offers a higher price, and forces the first one out. Furthermore, in this case, I did not resort to this common practice. The commissioners and the judge sent for me and my partner and offered us a monopoly for the sale of whiskey for another locality. During this transaction they promised us on their own accord to sell us the monopoly held by A. We have a competent witness who heard the judge make that offer of sale to us. A, in the meantime, had been trying to purchase it from the mayor through one of the officials; he offered a higher price and promised a bribe for the mayor. But the official informed him that the mayor had no right to sell without the consent of the other authorities. When the rest of the officials learned of A's intentions they sent for us again, and offered us the contract for three years as promised by the judge. We affirmed their offer; they affixed the seal of the city to the contract and gave it to us. <br>Before we left, one of the officials asked for the contract on the pretext that it had to be re-examined, but they then refused to return it unless we paid a bribe of 400 <i>Rhine-landish</i> to the judge and the same amount to each of the other officials, as such, they said, had always been their practice. One of the officials put the contract away in his private desk and said to us: \"The contract is now in hands more trustworthy than yours; nobody could purchase it now even if he raised the price, and you will get your contract as soon as you pay what is coming to us.\"<br> After we had settled with them, A and his partners approached the mayor with a more alluring bribe and raised the bid for the license still higher. The mayor then commanded the commissioners not to return us the contract at all, because, he admitted, A and his partners had offered a higher price. <br>We then warned A and his partners in public not to compete with us, and if they sustained any damage we would settle it before a Jewish court. We have witnesses to testify to this. But they ignored our warning and succeeded with the mayor and with the officials in annulling our contract.",
            "We then proposed to A and his partners that we hold the monopoly in equal partnership, but they refused. (Obadiah and Meir ha-Levi testified to that statement.)  We also warned the mayor in the presence of the officials, who had worked with him to annul our contract, that we would lodge a complaint with the queen over the annulment of a legal government contract. The mayor affirmed our claim, but, he said, he could not alter his course, because the other Jews had offered a higher price. <br>The bribe that we paid to the judge and the others had not been returned to us, although we made demands for it on numerous occasions. Meanwhile the queen's secretary came to the city on his periodic visit, to listen to complaints against the mayor and other officials. Among many other complainants, we related to him all that had transpired with regard to the monopoly. Towards the end of our complaint, in order to save the money we had paid out in bribes, we told the secretary that we too could afford to pay as high a price as 80 <i>shok,</i> provided we were not called upon to pay such heavy personal bribes. ",
            "The secretary rebuked the mayor and his officials for revoking a government contract. Some tried to excuse themselves by saying that the object of the mayor in annulling the contract was to raise more money for the government. But a quarrel soon broke out among the officials in the presence of the secretary and he learned that the monopoly sold to A had not been offered at auction but sold privately, and that the government seal had been stolen by the officials from the City Hall for that purpose; hence A's contract was a forgery. <br>The secretary reported the entire case, and the queen decided that the bribes forced from us be returned, and a new contract be given in her name for the price we had offered the judge, plus the bribes we had paid him and the officials.",
            "When A learned of the queen's order he summoned me before the rabbi mentioned and proclaimed, first, that I had no right to compete with him because he had had the concession for three years; second, that the deal I had made with the judge and the other officials had never been executed, inasmuch as they retained the contract. Therefore, his deal with the mayor, which took place afterwards, was legal and I had no right to influence the government to revoke it.",
            "*",
            "The rabbi pronounced judgment in favor of A and ordered that I transfer the license to him, and in addition that I pay him the difference between the price at which he could have obtained it had I not competed with him, and the price he would have to pay now.",
            "B then asked Luria for his opinion: <br><b><i>Q</i>. 1. Is the rabbi's judgment in accordance with the law? 2. If not, is it binding, since both of us signed an agreement to abide by his judgment?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The findings upon question of law arising in this case have not been submitted to me and I do not know on what ground the rabbi awarded his judgment in favor of A. A told me that the rabbi supported his judgment on a responsum of Rokeah (Eleazer ben Judah of Worms) which reads: \"Be careful not to encroach upon your neighbor's rights. You shall not take his livelihood from him. Wicked is the man who raises the price for a deal made with the government; such an act is not forgivable. No other robber can be considered as bad as he. If he will not submit to the law let him be put under a ban.\" If this responsum were the only support upon which the rabbi based his judgment, I would reverse it without hesitation, as I shall explain below. But I cannot rely upon A that this was the reason for the rabbi's decision, because A is not versed in the law. I shall, therefore, analyze the case from all angles before I award the decision."
        ],
        [
            "1. As to the law: <br>The laws governing competition, the laws regulating the dealings of Jews with gentiles, and the purchase and sale laws could not have prohibited B from purchasing the monopoly. <br>a) The law prohibiting competition was derived from the passage, <i>Ani ha-mehapek ba-hararah u-ba aher u-netalah hemenu nikra rasha</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">T. B. Kiddushin, 59a.</i>—\"If a poor man moves about a stack (waiting for its removal to take up a forgotten sheaf) and another man comes along and takes it from him, the latter is called a wicked man.\"",
            "Rashi interpreted the passage verbatim, and ruled that the law of competition is applicable even to abandoned property, to something found, and to charity. ",
            "Rabbenu Tam, however, held that the law against competition does not govern these instances; as no law prohibits one from obtaining a thing which is free for all through unrestricted rivalry. This applies to a thing or service which cannot be replaced. The passage referred to is metaphoric and speaks of the following ways of competition: For example, if one were trying to hire himself out to work and another preceded him and obtained the job, or if one were trying to purchase a certain article and another stepped forward and bought it for himself, the latter is merely called a wicked man without further punishment, because work and merchandise can be obtained elsewhere. <br>The ruling of Rabbenu Tam was accepted by most of the halakists, including Ri (Isaac ben Samuel ha-Zaken of Dempierre), Rabenu Meir (Meir ben Baruk of Rothenburg), and Rosh. It was not changed thereafter. Thus, competition as described by Rabbenu Tam is regarded in the eyes of the law as wicked, but no damages may be assessed therefor. <br>Even when a person tries to obtain something by actual work and has suffered a loss because of competition, his competitor is not liable for damages. For instance, the poor man who does the gleaning on top of an olive tree is entitled by law to the olives which fall down under him. His competitor who picks them up is considered a robber in a rabbinical sense. Yet the law cannot force him to return them. <br>When, however, a newcomer interferes with a native in the practice of his profession to the extent of depriving him of his livelihood, damages are collectible by law.",
            "b) The rules which regulate trading between Jews and gentiles were derived from the passage: <i>Nikse obed kokabim hare hen ke-midbar we-kol ha-mahazik ba-hen zakah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">T. B. Baba Batra, 54b.</i>—\"Pagan property is on a par with deserted property, and anyone who reaches for it acquires it.\" <br>This abstruse passage was thus elucidated by Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir) : When a pagan has sold his property to a Jew and received the purchase price therefor, but no deed of conveyance has been delivered to the Jew, the latter has no foundation for ownership. Then if another Jew acquires the same property of the pagan by proper deed, he has gained possession thereof. The rule remains that no Jew can get possession of property upon simple payment of money without a deed of conveyance, when it is purchased of a pagan. The second purchaser, however, is a wicked man, Rashbam continued, and he should be proclaimed as such by the sexton in the synagogue. <br>Rambam amended the law and ruled that the second purchaser should pay the first, as penalty, the amount he paid to the pagan. But this, Rambam proceeded, is applicable only in countries where they have no real estate laws; in countries where real estate is regulated by law, the Jews submit to the same regulations as the gentiles.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Zekiah u-Matanah, 1:14-15.</i> <br>In all civil cases the Jewish court accepts the laws of the respective countries. Rokeah in his responsum speaks of a case where the deal was consummated and the second Jew succeeded in persuading the government to revoke it; therefore he ruled that the competitor was liable to damages.",
            "c) The laws of purchase and sale are diversified according to localities. In some places coaxing customers is held to be unfair competition and liable to damages, while in others it is permitted. In the district of Brest-Litovsk enticing customers, according to a decision of Rabbi Kalonymus, was not regarded as unfair competition.",
            "Hence the decision of the rabbi is void.",
            "a) The laws governing competition could not have prohibited B from purchasing the monopoly were it even on a par with a profession, because B was a native, and had been engaged in the same business before. Furthermore, a monopolist does not have the status of a professional. A monopoly cannot be considered an established trade, because it is offered for sale every three years at public auction. It is rather like a found article, where no laws of encroachment prevail at all, according to Rabbenu Tam's accepted ruling. Even if the rabbi agreed with Rashi in his opinion concerning the laws of competition he could not have decided in favor of A on this ground, because A had never obtained a legal contract of the deal. The contract given him by the city officials was a forgery and had been annulled by the queen.",
            "b) A could not have argued that since the city had sold him the monopoly three years ago by legal contract, and since this was gentile property, he had the right to keep it in perpetuity, and no other Jew had the right to compete with him. For the city had sold it to him for three years only as required by law, and expected it back at the expiration of the term. ",
            "c) According to the laws of purchase and sale no intrusion was unlawful in the district of Brest-Litovsk. Moreover, the city officials had sent for B and offered to lease the monopoly to him, because they would not again lease it to A. Hence, B might not even be called wicked for acquiring the monopoly. The rabbi, therefore, had no ground for deciding the case in favor of A. Even more remote from the law was the rabbi's decision that B had to pay A the increase in the price of the monopoly, whereas B had not raised the price at all. At any rate, this would be indirect damages, for which B could not be held responsible. <br>B, then, had the right of purchasing the monopoly, because it usually changed hands every three years. The contract the city made with B was valid, although it was drawn before A's term expired, because there was no subject involved in the deal which had to be delivered from one hand to the other. The city sold him a license, a permit, a right to manufacture whiskey, after the contract of the old concessionaire should have expired. This the government was accustomed to do prior to the expiration of the old contract. <br>The fact that the city officials did not return the contract to B did not annul the deal, because witnesses and rumors had confirmed that the deal was consummated. Moreover, the queen, whose authority over her subjects permits her to approve and to annul their acts because they are her slaves, made a new contract with B. B could not be treated as an informer because he told the queen's secretary of the bribes; his object in doing so was to save his money and not to inform the government concerning A.",
            "2. As to the agreement: <br>a) The rabbi violated the rule, \"Do not hold court as a single judge.\" Even an experienced judge, chosen willingly by the litigants, whether to award a decision according to the law, or to act as an arbiter, is not allowed to judge alone in monetary cases. <br>b) A and B came to the rabbi to decide their dispute in accordance with the law. Moreover, one of the litigants (B) asked for two associates, which indicated that he had made the agreement with the implicit understanding that the rabbi would conduct the case according to the law; but the latter judged it alone, therefore the agreement was void. <br>c) If a court has decided a case contrary to the law, its decision is void. It is needless to say that a decision contrary to talmudic law is void, for even one opposed to the laws of the geonim or the halakists, if not supported by the law of the Talmud, is also void, to the same degree as if one had decided against an explicit law of the Mishnah. An agreement by litigants to abide by such a decision is not binding. The decision of the rabbi that B had no right to purchase the monopoly, and that he must return it to A plus the additional expenses it would cost now to retain it, was inconsistent with the law.",
            "Therefore, the monopoly belongs to B, and he cannot even be accused of unfair competition. In the rabbinic sense A acted tortiously, and he would have to pay B all the damages the latter sustained on account of this strife, but I am not to render sentence as far as this is concerned."
        ],
        [
            "A competent scribe of Ruthenia, Little Russia, in writing the <i>parshiyot</i> of the <i>tefillin shel yad,</i> left a hiatus at the end of the parashah of Shema, and commenced the next parashah, <i>We-hayah im shamoa,</i> at the beginning of the first line on the next column, in accordance with the style of the German school. Thus, he made the later parashah open (petuhah). Rabbi Moses ben Meshullam, who had ordered the tefillin from the scribe, belonged to the Spanish school. The scribes of that school used to write the same parashah closed (setumah). He, therefore, thought that the tefillin were unholy and useless (pasul). A correspondence concerning this matter went on for some time among the following rabbis: Moses ben Meshullam, Joshua Shunzo, Meir ben Isaac Kazenellenbogen, and David Blumish, until it was submitted by Rabbi Moses Blumish to Luria. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Should such tefillin as written by the scribe of Ruthenia be rejected?</b>",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "<i>A</i>. Tefillin written in this style are used throughout Russia and Germany. The scribes of these countires write the tefillin as prescribed by Ha-Baruk, that the parashah of Shema finish in the middle of the line. This ruling is in concurrence with that of Baal ha-Ittur, who holds that all the four parshiyot should be open, and it corresponds with that of <i>Sefer Orhot Hayyim</i> who ruled against Rambam, that such tefillin are kosher.",
            "Therefore, I consider the tefillin written by that scribe kosher and preferable to the other styles which I have examined. Below are the various styles which I have looked over:",
            "1. The first two parshiyot began at the top of each column and ended in the middle of the last line of the column. The parashah of Shema began at the top of the column and ended with a complete line at the end of the column. The parashah <i>We-hayah im shamoa</i> began in the middle of the first line.",
            "2. The first two parshiyot began in the middle of the line and ended with a full line at the end of the column. The parashah of Shema tallies with the one in number 1. The parashah <i>We-hayah im shamoa</i> opened at the beginning of the line and ended with a complete line.",
            "3. Each of the first three parshiyot commenced with the beginning of the first line and ended in the middle of the line at the end of each respective column, and the parashah <i>We-hayah im shamoa</i> began at the top of the column and ended with a full line.",
            "The tefillin which I prefer to all others are written in the following style:",
            "4. The first parashah <i>Kadesh</i> begins with a full line at the top of the column and ends in the middle of the last line. The second parashah <i>We-hayah ki yebiaka</i> begins with a hiatus of three letters in the first line, and ends the last line with hiatus of nine letters. The third parashah of Shema begins the same way as the second, and ends with a full line. And the fourth parashah of <i>We-hayah im shamoa</i> begins the first line with a hiatus of at least three letters, and ends with a full last line. This style is prescribed by Rashi."
        ],
        [
            "A rented his house to B for a period of three years, because he (A) had moved to another locality, and there rented a mill and a homestead of the chieftain for the same period of time. The chieftain dispossessed A of his homestead after a year and a half and he had no alternative but to return to his home town. A then wished to regain possession of his house, on the claim that he had rented it for three years only because he expected to remain on his leasehold for the same space of time. But B refused to vacate the house. He declared that he had rented it for three full years. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Can A force B to vacate the house?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. If A had leased his house to B for the three years the implied condition would not entitle him to regain his house before the expiration of three years even if he produced evidence that he had been forced out of his leasehold as a victim. But since he had rented the house to B for the three years, the latter must vacate it even if he had paid his rent for the full three years in advance. If such was the case then A should return to B the balance of the rent and the latter must vacate the house."
        ],
        [
            "A present was given by a gentile to a Jew on the first day of a holiday. The gentile had in all likelihood done some work on it on the same day.<br><b><i>Q</i>. May another Jew make use of it on the second day of the holiday or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The gift given to a Jew by a gentile on the first day of a holiday may be used by another Jew on the second day of the holiday. Moreover, he would be allowed to use it even on the evening of the same day, provided he waited after dusk as long as it would take to procure it from the nearest place."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May the knife used in circumcision on the Sabbath be handled or hidden away after the operation?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Handling of the knife designated for a circumcision on the Sabbath cannot be forbidden after the operation for the rest of the day, as handling of the Shofar cannot be forbidden after the services."
        ],
        [
            "Disagreement between husband and wife reached such an acute stage that the wife, encouraged by her father, demanded a divorce of her husband. She complained that he had made his religion an object of derision. The local court sent the question to Luria: <br><b><i>Q</i>. May the husband be coerced to grant his wife a divorce on the ground that he is treating religion with scorn?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The husband cannot be forced to give his wife a bill of divorce on the charge that he regards religion as a frivolous affair. Moreover, even if the charge were true, or he was converted to another religion, but still cared for his wife as the law requires of a Jewish husband, she could not compel him to give her a divorce.",
            "But she cannot be compelled to live with him, either. She may take her wedding outfit given to her by her father and return home. The husband, then, would no longer be responsible for its depreciation. And she has no right to take with her the wardrobe which her husband gave her.",
            "The court, however, should find out from her parents, under the threat of a herem, whether or not they advised her to make this accusation against her husband because she was in love with another man. In case such a deceit be discovered she should lose all the dowry brought to her husband on her marriage. And if any violence be used to force the husband to grant her a divorce, she should be treated as a woman who refused her marital obligations and lose the right of collecting her ketubah."
        ],
        [
            "A and B entered into a contract with gentile merchants to deliver 10,000 boards. They did deliver 6,600 boards, jointly bought from the starost, and they were paid 200 <i>zehubim</i> in accordance with the terms of the contract. This sum they divided equally. The remainder of 3,400 was to be supplied from A's own lumber yard. A subsequently delivered this number of boards out of his own property. For the later delivery A charged a price lower than the one agreed upon in the contract, but the gentile merchants refused to pay him for it altogether.",
            "A demanded that B should share with him in the loss, because they had been partners in the entire deal, and the second delivery had merely completed the terms of the contract. A further demanded that B pay him a share of the bribe paid to an official for helping procure the contract; and he summoned him to the court of Elijah ben Aaron of Lithuania.",
            "B refused to share in the loss, contending that he was partner only to the 6,600 boards of the first delivery; and the partnership was terminated upon their dividing the 200 <i>zehubim</i> paid by the merchants. B further asserted that the second delivery of 3,400 boards had been made entirely on A's own account. As proof, B cited the fact that A had charged for the 3,400 boards a lower price than the one received, in accordance with the contract, for the boards of the first delivery. <br>B also refused to pay a share of the bribe which A declared he had given the official for procuring the contract, stating that this was the first time he had heard from A that such a bribe was ever paid.",
            "A in rebuttal maintained that B had to share the loss because the 3,400 boards were a part of the 10,000 of the contract; and the money received from the merchants after the first delivery was in the nature of an installment on the whole amount that would be due them after all the boards had been delivered. This was also implied in the receipt given to the merchants. And the reason he charged them less for the 3,400 boards was that they had been overcharged on the 6,600.",
            "Rabbi Elijah sent the case to Luria and asked:  <br>1. Must B share the loss? <br>2. Must B share the bribe?",
            "<i>A</i>. 1. The contract of A and B with the gentile merchants cannot be accepted as testimony in a Jewish court, so far as their partnership is concerned. Therefore, since A has no other evidence to prove that his partnership with B included the entire deal, the latter could take an oath that he was partner only to the 6.600 boards and free himself from A's claim. <br>2. With regard to the second question of the bribe, which A asserted he had paid to an official in order to complete the deal, he could reimburse himself without any special oath, but by taking the oath of partnership.",
            "The decision of Luria with regard to the first question was not accepted by Elijah's court, and it was sent back to him with the following statement: Since both A and B acknowledged that the contract signed by the gentile merchants was no forgery, then why not take it as evidence that they were partners to the entire deal as indicated in the contract?",
            "<i>A</i>. I shall repeat my answer: A contract drawn for Jews in a gentile court cannot be accepted as evidence in a Jewish court, especially when gentiles are parties to the deal. Moreover, this contract could not be used as evidence even if it were written in a Jewish court. The contract does not indicate any specific terms with regard to their partnership. It reads that A and B sold 10,000 boards to the gentile merchants. The logical conclusion of this statement is that they are equal partners, and the money received for the 10,000 boards will be equally divided between them. However, according to their oral testimony, the 3,400 boards belonged to A alone, and B would have no share in the money when they were paid for. Why, then, did not A protect himself against B, that the latter should not be able to claim a part of this money on the strength of the contract? Because he had faith that B would not claim any money for the 3,400 boards; he had more faith in B than in the contract. This fact vitiated the contract and it cannot be accepted as evidence in the court. Therefore, the court upon his oath must decide in favor of B that his agreement with A applied only to the 6,600 boards."
        ],
        [
            "A rented his house to B for a period of one year. During the year A sold it to C, who was to take possession thereof upon the expiration of B's term. When B's term ended C came to possess his house, but B denied him the right of it. <br>B claimed the prerogative of the neighbor, i.e., the right of preemption. As in the case of pledged property, he contended, which the creditor has the prerogative of purchasing, so in the case of a tenancy the tenant should have the same right. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Must B surrender the house to C or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. In the case of pledged property, where the debtor repays his loan with the usufruct of his estate, the law entitles the creditor to preemption because he has benefited the former with the loan. But no tenant who rents a house or an estate for a period of time, and as customary pays the rent at the expiration of the term, can claim such a privilege. And even if B paid his rent in advance he must be treated as a tenant, because he paid for the use of the house only. Therefore he must vacate the house in favor of the purchaser."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is the amen after the third benediction of <i>Boneh Yerushalaim</i> in grace after meals to be said aloud or in an undertone? (<i>Boneh Yerushalaim</i> ends that part of grace which is to be recited according to the Bible; the rest is added through a rabbinic ordinance).</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The reason that in talmudic times<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Berakot, 45b.</i> the amen after <i>Boneh Yerushalaim</i> was spoken in a whisper is that the workers be not disturbed in the middle of grace. They used to have their meals together with their master, and if he had said amen aloud, they would have taken this as token that grace was finished, and that they had to return to work.",
            "Another reason is that the teachers wanted to impress upon their pupils, dining with them, that this was not the end of grace, lest they begin to talk with one another, and fail to observe the fourth benediction <i>Hatob we-ha-metib</i> with respect.",
            "Nowadays, however, workers, by agreement with their employers, have the right to pray three times a day, to say grace after meals, and to read the Shema and they would not be sent back to work after their meal without finishing grace. The students, at this time, need no such instruction either, because they know the meaning of the amen. ",
            "Therefore, this amen, like any other, should be said aloud."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Can a husband be compelled to supply his wife during her confinement period, usually extending over three or four weeks, with better nourishment, and with such other considerations as hiring a nurse for her or a servant for the house?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Women during their confinement period nowadays are in the same category as sick women, and they must be treated as such. This is not in harmony with the expressed talmudic law, but laws are changed according to time and place. As the husband's obligation to clothe his wife varies with time and place according to the Talmud, so should his obligations with regard to food. The husband, therefore, can be forced to treat his wife during her confinement with the special consideration prevailing among the average family."
        ],
        [
            "The Talmud states that the rule of <i>shebut</i> (which prohibits a Jew asking a gentile to work for him on the Sabbath) does not apply to Friday at twilight. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Does it hold for any act at all, or only when a religious requisite or a matter of great importance is involved?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The statement of the Talmud referred to applies only to acts of religious significance, as providing food, drink, clothes, or candles for the Sabbath. The gentiles may also be asked to light a Yahrzeit candle, which is customary among the German Jews. But acts which have a purely secular purpose are prohibited, unless they are of great moment or their omission might cause a great loss."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May youths wear their amulets on the Sabbath in a <i>karmelit,</i> if both the person who made the amulet and the amulet itself have not been approved by an acknowledged authority?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although amulets are not efficacious, yet since those who wear them to ward off evil spirits or to cure epilepsy regard them also as ornaments, they may wear them on the Sabbath in a karmelit."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. If one has omitted <i>Al ha-nissim</i> on Purim in the grace after meals, does he have to repeat the grace?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although no repetition is required if it is omitted in the morning or evening prayer, the paragraph must be repeated if omitted in the grace after meals, for the meal of Purim is an institution established by the prophets and sages for all time to come, and it must be kept with the strictness of any other biblical law."
        ],
        [
            "A, upon marrying his daughter to B, gave the latter a note in which he bequeathed him one thousand guldens, to be paid by his heirs. However, it was indicated in the note that the heirs had the option of giving the son-in-law, instead of the stipulated sum, a share in his estate. This share was to comprise half of what any son of his would inherit both from the estate he possessed at the time the note was written, and out of other property which might eventually become his possession.",
            "A's father, who was living at the time, also had an estate. A died while his father was still alive; and he left his estate to his sons. Then A's father died and also left his estate to A's sons, as they were his natural heirs.",
            "A's sons preferred to give their brother-in-law a half share of the property each had inherited from their father at his death, instead of the thousand guldens. The son-in-law protested that if he would not obtain the stipulated thousand guldens, but a half (male) share of the estate, then he was entitled to a half (male) share also of the estate left by their grandfather—for, in accordance with the terms of the note, he was to get his half of a share due each male heir even of property that might come to his father-in-law prospectively, although after his death. The sons maintained that he was entitled to no share of the estate of their grandfather, because when their father died they became the direct heirs of their grandfather. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Does the son-in-law have a share in their grandfather's estate?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. No one can sell or mortgage property which he does not possess at the time but will possess in the future. However, if one has stipulated alternative conditions concerning a contingent estate, the stipulation is valid. A had stipulated that his sons should give his son-in-law either one thousand guldens or a share of the inheritance, both of what he actually possessed at the time and what was eventually to become his possession. They refused to pay him the set sum but elected to give him a share of the estate. Therefore, they must give him a share of the estate bequeathed to them by their grandfather, in accordance with the terms of the note. For this document indicated by its peculiar form that A meant to bequeath to his son-in-law even the property that might come to him after his death—in this case, as it happened, his father's estate.",
            "Moses Isserles of Cracow and Meir of Padua agreed with Luria in this decision. (See responsa, Rema, No. 3.)"
        ],
        [
            "A widow collected her ketubah out of the real estate of her late husband, which had been mortgaged to her, including a seat in the synagogue. (A seat in the synagogue is regarded by law as real estate.) Some time later his sons acquired money and wished to pay the widow the sum of the ketubah in cash, in order to take possession of their father's seat.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Can they force her to accept the money and return the place in the synagogue?</b>",
            "Moses Isserles, consulted on the question by Luria, was of the opinion that the widow was on a par with any other creditor, who would have to return mortgaged real estate were the debtor at any time willing to pay the debt in cash.",
            "<i>A</i>. Luria, however, held that she could not be treated as a creditor, for her husband never owed her money in the same sense that a debtor owes it to a creditor. He mortgaged his real estate and his seat in the synagogue, not for money received from her, but in consideration of the amount designated in the ketubah; and she by accepting the mortgage intended, in all likelihood, to retain the mortgaged property for her ketubah rather than to collect money therefor. Hence, after she had exercised her option and accepted the real estate and the seat in the synagogue in lieu of her ketubah, the bargain was consummated and she could not be forced to surrender it upon the offer of cash."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permissible in a place where there is no erub to carry articles through the street on the Sabbath by passing them along from one person to another, standing within four cubits apart?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. This is not permitted."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. a) May a Jew lend money on interest to a Jewish registered pawnbroker, who lends money to gentiles on pledges without taking these pledges from him as security?</b>",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. b) If a Jewish pawnbroker gave his valuables to a gentile to pawn with a Jew, and instructed the gentile to say that the valuables were his own and that he was borrowing the money for himself, and later the deception was found out, may the broker collect the interest from the gentile? May he collect it from the Jew?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. a) Such a loan is not permitted, because it would constitute a direct loan to the pawnbroker, and the interest collected for such a loan would constitute stipulated usury.",
            "<i>A</i>. b) If the lender knew at the time he made the loan that the gentile acted as an agent for the Jew, he must not collect the interest; otherwise he may.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. If a Jewish pawnbroker gave his money to a gentile and instructed the latter to say that the money was his own and to lend it to a Jew on interest, and later the deception was found out, may the borrower pay the interest to the Jew? May he pay it to the gentile?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. If the borrower knew that the gentile got the money from the pawnbroker to lend it especially to him he must not pay the interest; otherwise he may."
        ],
        [
            "A woman gave birth to a child on the second day of Ab. The fast of Ab fell on the Sabbath, and consequently was postponed to Sunday.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Need she fast?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. She ought to fast. Even if the denial of food be very painful to her, she should not be fed. But if she is indisposed and asks for food, she may be fed even without a medical opinion."
        ],
        [
            "\"Minhagim\" makes mention of the fact that the practice of abstaining from meat during the three weeks (from the seventeenth day of the month of Tammuz to the ninth day of the month of Ab) was extended by the women to Sabbath Nahmu. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Has the practice instituted by the women the force of a custom?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The abstention of the women from meat-dishes after the Ninth of Ab until Sabbath Nahmu has not the force of a custom. All the ritual codices which state that the self-restrained man abstains from eating meat and drinking wine during the period of distress, until after the Ninth of Ab, do not mention that this custom was ever extended to Sabbath Nahmu. The usage instituted by the women is the offspring of folly. Since the Ninth of Ab often falls on a Thursday and as it is customary not to indulge in meat-dishes until noon of the tenth of Ab, which consequently falls on Friday, it turns out that the people who ate no meat before Sabbath Nahmu did this without force of any law or custom.",
            "This practice, therefore, not having any ground in traditional Judaism, should be withheld from practice, because self-affliction in any manner is a sin."
        ],
        [
            "<small>A very prominent scholar of a distinguished family in Poland, who could find no means to support his wife and children in his own country, left for some other place on the pretext of seeking employment, whereas, because of his poverty, he had actually deserted his wife in order to avoid any increase in his family. <br>When he failed to return after a lapse of several years, the wife and a relative of hers, Mendel ben Uri of the families Schwartz and Auerbach, appealed to Luria to write to the husband, that he return home, even though empty-handed. The wife at the same time let it be known that she would help provide for the family. After several letters had passed between them without result, Luria wrote the following letter:</small>",
            "\"My beloved Rabbi Joseph Josel, greetings! <br>As yet you have given only evasive answers to my letters. You have scolded your friends who reminded you that you left a family behind. You have shown great animosity to those who reprimanded you therefor. But the biblical law (Leviticus 19:17) 'Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor' obliges me to write to you again. Moreover, I could not refrain from seeing the grief, tears, and broken-down condition of your chaste wife. Is she to wait for you all her life? And as far as you are concerned, is this to be the life of a scholar? Furthermore, no scholar is allowed to separate from his wife for more than three years; and may God save you from that! How much blood have you shed, your own and your children's!",
            "\"Your answer that you are poor and that you regret that you begot any children does not justify your action. Is this the law? Is a poor man not allowed to cohabit with his wife?",
            "\"Your wife wishes that you return home, even empty-handed. She believes that a man of your caliber, your knowledge and wisdom can always find something to do here, while where you are now you have accomplished nothing. Furthermore, conditions at home are not as bad as you describe them. Your wife would help you earn a livelihood. She has always prepared your table and your bed.",
            "\"Do not repeat your excuses any more, for they are without foundation, lest I put you under ban of excommunication.",
            " \"You may think that you are the greatest man on earth, and that neither I nor any other rabbi has the right to treat you like this, yet beware of my admonition. This is the opinion of all the prominent men and great scholars of the city. If you will not return to your wife, we shall proclaim the ban in the name of Moses who gave us the Bible, and in the name of Rabbenu Gershon, Light of the Exile.",
            "\"I shall send you this letter privately, in order not to disgrace you and not to cause you trouble in the place where you are now. But in case you ignore it, I shall send the next letter to Rabbi Jacob and to Rabbi Leser, as suggested by your wife, and they will break your friendship with the scholars among whom you now reside. I have promised your wife under oath that I shall do everything in my power to bring you back home, in order to get her consent to send you this letter privately, and I shall keep my promise. Do not depend upon your fame and popularity. I shall not give in to you for that—a ban is waiting for you!",
            "\"Come back home for the sake of your wife whom you always loved, for your own sake, and especially for the sake of your children who are to perpetuate your life. <br>S<small>OLOMON</small> L<small>URIA</small>\""
        ],
        [
            "Q. In what order ought the Torah benediction be said in the morning prayers?",
            "<i>A</i>. Ancient custom placed it before the section of the <i>tamid,</i> and the old prayer books were arranged accordingly. The Tur (Jacob ben Asher), however, placed it immediately after the benediction <i>al netilat yadayim,</i> so as to precede the scriptural verses of the <i>birkat kohanim</i>.",
            "I, however, recite the morning prayer in the following order: The benediction of the Torah I say at home right after the washing of the hands, having first said <i>asher yazar</i> and <i>Elohai neshamah</i> (the benediction of netilat yadayim I say at the synagogue). After the benediction of the Torah I say: <br>Three verses of Leviticus—19:16-18 (Law). <br>Three verses of Joshua—1:7-9 (Prophets). <br>Three verses of Psalms—1:1-3 (Hagiographa) <br>Peah—1:1 (Mishnah) <br>Leviticus—28:1-8 (Mikra) <br>Zebahim—5:1-7 (Mishnah) <br>Rabbi Ishmael, Baraita; beginning of Sifra (Talmud) <br>Birkat Kohanim—Numbers 6:24-26 (Torah)"
        ],
        [
            "Citing the laws of leaven with regard to the baking of mazot, the <i>Terumat ha-Deshen</i> by Israel Isserlein states: <i>She-be-Pessah yesh le-esor kol ha-mazot</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Terumat ha-Deshen, responsum 127.</i> Scholars not well versed in the law interpreted the statement to mean that when two mazot touch each other in the oven while baking, all the mazot in the oven become leaven. The question was sent to Luria.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Do two mazot which touched one another in the oven while baking become leaven only in the contiguous parts or in the whole? Or, perhaps, do all the mazot in the oven baked at the time become leaven? Would it make any difference as to when they were baked, before or during Passover?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. We have a tradition to prohibit mazot for Passover use if they were folded up in the oven while baking, but the mazot which touched one another do not become leaven at all. And there is no difference when they were baked, before or during Passover. The misinterpretation of the law, on account of the statement <i>She-be-Pessah yesh le-esor kol ha-mazot</i> which occurs in some copies of the Terumat ha-Deshen, was caused by scholars not well versed in the law. The scribe erred in the statement, which should be emended to: <i>Yesh le-esor kol ha-mazah</i>."
        ],
        [
            "One had forgotten to take <i>hallah</i> from the mazah dough.<br><b><i>Q</i>. How should the hallah be taken from the baked mazot?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. All the mazot should be placed in a hamper, and one mazah be taken out as hallah."
        ],
        [
            "Evidence was taken against a man of Novogrodek (Russia: Province of Minsk), that he said to a woman who had refused to dance with him: \"I know why you refuse me; it is because I do not want to pay you three guldens. You act likewise, I was told, towards your own husband; you would not let him come near you unless he paid you three guldens.\"",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What punishment should be meted out for such vile language?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Were it even true that the woman in question said that she would not take the ritual bath before her husband gave her three guldens as the defendant attempts to prove, he should escape no punishment, because such talk by a woman should be taken with a grain of salt. It is a psychological fact that women seek to exalt themselves when they are prating and babbling among their own sex, and their greatest satisfaction is to speak of their husbands and of their commanding influence over them. But no significance should be given to such gossip.",
            "Therefore, the congregation should compel the man to stand before the ark in the synagogue with lighted candles in his hands and beg of God, of the woman, and of her husband to be pardoned for his scurrility; then he should be ordered to sit at the door outside the synagogue for four weeks as a mourner. And he must pay all the expenses incurred by the husband in connection with this trial. In case the delinquent refuses to comply with this decision, he should be excommunicated.",
            "",
            "The <i>hazan</i> of the congregation should read this decision in the synagogue before the members of the community."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permissible to place hot boiled food in hot ashes on Friday so as to keep it warm for the Sabbath?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Yes, it is permissible; because the hot ashes add no heat. But I have heard that in some localities people place their pots of hot boiled food on Friday on live coal, to keep them hot for the Sabbath. This is unquestionably not allowed, and measures ought to be taken to prevent them from so doing. In a closed oven, such a practice is questionable, even though the live coal and the ashes be moved away from the pot. Yet, in the latter case, if the people are so accustomed to it that they would not abandon it in the face of warning, no preventive measures have to be taken, since the Sefer-ha-Terumah (by Baruk ben Isaac ha-Kohen, twelfth century) and the Semag allow it."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it permissible to place an egg on a hot roof on the Sabbath in order to have it baked, since the heat of the sun and not the fire is the agent? Again, is it permitted to put an egg into hot sand on Friday, in order that it be roasted for the Sabbath?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The raw egg may be placed on the hot roof on the Sabbath, provided there is no hot dust. But eggs may not be put in hot sand on Friday to be used on the Sabbath. Even if the egg be already roasted, it must not be put into the sand to keep it hot for the Sabbath."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. When a hot <i>terefah liquid</i> is poured over some kosher food, does the food become terefah only in part—just where the liquid happened to be poured—or is the whole surface affected, or does the food become <i>terefah</i> in its entirety?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Only the surface would be affected, because when hot liquid is poured upon food it does not soak through the food as when they are cooked together."
        ],
        [
            "The reader in the synagogue had forgotten to say <i>Anenu</i> on a public fast day before <i>Refaenu</i>. He was reminded by the officer in charge when he had already begun the benediction <i>Refaenu</i> and was advised to say the <i>Anenu</i> in the passage <i>Shomea Tefilah,</i> where it is recited in individual prayer. But he forgot it again and said the benediction <i>Shomea Tefilah</i> as always.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Shall he then say it after <i>oseh shalom</i> as a special benediction, or shall it be said before <i>Elohai nezor</i> as in individual prayers, if he failed to say it in the right place?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. It should be said before <i>Elohai nezor,</i> and it will not be considered a distinct benediction although recited after the conclusion of the Eighteen Benedictions."
        ],
        [
            "Q. Someone asked Luria whether he was familiar with the tradition concerning the contents and order of the prayer book.",
            "<i>A</i>. I have received no particular tradition from my late grandfather with regard to services. In my youth I concentrated my whole attention on the study of the Talmud and dialectics, and to my sorrow and regret I neglected the study of liturgy. My grandfather's library, including his prayer book, to which I could turn for reference, was destroyed in the great fire of Posen. Alas, it is gone and cannot be replaced! Yet I remember somewhat vaguely the style in which my grandfather used to pray. It differed in many respects from that which I have found in various prayer books.",
            "The following are the differences:",
            "When he prayed alone he said <i>Anenu</i> immediately after <i>Al teshibenu rekam milfaneka,</i> and finished the paragraph with <i>Baruk atah Adonai shomea tefilah,</i> and not with <i>ha-oneh be-et zarah</i>.",
            "When it happened that he came late to the synagogue, in the middle of the service, he skipped all portions of the prayer except <i>Baruk she-amar, Ashre,</i> and <i>Yishtabah;</i> or he would sometimes skip these portions also and join the congregation. After the prayer he never said <i>pesuke de-zimrah</i>. ",
            "In the morning he recited the Decalogue from Exodus, 20:2-14, and at night on his bed, after having read Shema, the Decalogue from Deuteronomy 5:6-18.",
            "In counting the <i>Omer</i> he used to say <i>Ha-yom shene yamim, ha-yom sheloshah yamim,</i> omitting the word <i>ba-omer</i>. ...",
            "In the <i>Al ha-nissim</i> he said <i>ba-yamim ha-hem ba-zeman ha-zeh,</i> and not <i>u-ba-zeman ha-zeh</i>. The omission of the <i>u</i> implied that the miracles were performed in days of old, at that time, and not at this time.",
            "The second night of Sukkot he used to say <i>lesheb ba-sukkah</i> before <i>shehehianu,</i> just as on the first night.",
            "In the prayer <i>Hashkibenu</i> he omitted the word <i>oyeb</i> because it is included in the words <i>deber we-hereb</i>.",
            "In order to be sure that he would not omit a word in the section <i>Pitum ha-ketoret</i> while praying, he never read it by heart. He interpreted the rule <i>We-im hissar ahat mi-kol samaneha hayyab mitah</i> as referring to the prayer itself, which is now substituting for the sacrifice.",
            "In grace after meals he omitted the word <i>borenu</i> from the passage <i>ha-El, abinu, malkenu, adirenu, borenu, goalenu, yozrenu,</i> either because the terms <i>borenu</i> and <i>yozrenu</i> connote the same thing, creation, or because, while the term <i>yazar</i> applies to material creation, the term <i>bara</i> denotes spiritual creation, and does not suit the occasion of eating.",
            "He finished the section of <i>Ha-rahaman</i> with the phrase <i>we-imru amen</i> and not with <i>we-nomar amen</i>.",
            "The following are the emendations which I made in the liturgical procedure:",
            "After washing the hands in the morning, I say <i>asher yazar</i>. Immediately thereafter I recite <i>Elohai neshamah,</i> leaving the benediction <i>al netilat yadayim</i> to be said at the synagogue. After the benediction of the Torah, I add three verses from the Pentateuch (Leviticus, 19:16-18), three verses from the Prophets (Joshua, 1:7-9), three verses from the Hagiographa (Psalms, 1:1-3), and the Mishnah <i>Elu debarim she-en la-hem shiur</i> (Peah 1:1). Thus I indicate that the benediction of the Torah includes the Mishnah. (The other sections tally with the order of our prayer books.)",
            "In the benedictions of the morning I omit the phrases <i>magbiha shefalim</i> and <i>hanoten la-yaef koah,</i> because they are not mentioned in the Talmud nor in the works of the geonim. ",
            "I say <i>matir asurim</i> before <i>zokef kefufim</i>. ...",
            "I say the second <i>Yiheyu le-razon,</i> which was composed by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi after <i>Elohai nezor,</i> and finish the section with <i>yiheyu le-razon imre fi</i>.",
            "I say the <i>Shema</i> of <i>le-fikak</i> by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi up to <i>u-bishareka,</i> and then I say <i>mekadesh et shimka ba-rabim</i>. ",
            "Before <i>Baruk she-amar</i> I recite the Decalogue in a loud voice.",
            "(The other sections tally with those of our prayer books.)",
            "I skip the first two verses of <i>Ashrei</i> and begin with <i>Tehilah le-David,</i> and say the first of these two verses at the afternoon service. I finish the section with the verse <i>Tehilat Adonai yedaber,</i> and omit <i>wa-anahnu nebarek Jah</i>.",
            "In the morning when I come to the synagogue I start praying with the verse <i>Wa-ani be-rob hasdeka</i> and skip the verse <i>Mah tobu ohaleka,</i> because Balaam said it, and his intent was to curse the Israelites and not to bless them. I also omit the verse <i>Wa-ani tefilati,</i> but say it on Sabbath at the afternoon prayer. When I sit down I say: <i>Ashre yoshbe beteka</i> and <i>Ashre ha-am</i>.",
            " Before leaving the synagogue I say while sitting, <i>Ak zadikim yodu li-shemeka yeshbu yesharim et paneka;</i> then I stand, bow down, face the ark, and say: <i>Ki kol ha-amim yelku ish be-shem Elohaw ma-anahnu nelek be-shem Adonai Elohenu le-olam waed</i>. On leaving the synagogue I bow down again and say: <i>Neheni Adonai be-zidkatka lemaan shorerai hayeshar le-fanai darkeka</i>.",
            "When the reader sings <i>Bareku,</i> I say <i>Yitbarak</i> up to <i>berakah u-tefilah;</i> when he sings the <i>Shem,</i> I say <i>Baruk shem kebod malkuto le-olam waed;</i> when he sings <i>ha-meborak,</i> I say <i>yehi shem Adonai meborak meatah we-ad olam;</i> and when the reader finishes <i>ha-meborak,</i> I say <i>Baruk Adonai ha-meborak le-olam waed</i>.",
            "I do not say <i>El melek neeman</i> before the <i>Shema</i>.",
            "On the anniversary of my father's death, when I act as the reader, I conclude the <i>Shema</i> with the phrase <i>Ani Adonai Elohekem</i> and omit the word <i>emet</i>.",
            "Before the Eighteen Benedictions I say <i>Adonai sefatai tiftah u-fi yagid tehilateka</i>.",
            "I do not say <i>Refaenu Adonai Elohenu</i> but <i>Refaenu Adonai we-nerafe</i>. I do not say <i>Reeh na be-anyenu</i> but <i>Reeh be-anyenu</i>.",
            "I say <i>we-sabeenu mi-tubeka</i> and not <i>we-sabeenu mitubah</i>.",
            "Before a fast day I say <i>Hareni be-taanit yahid mahar le-faneka</i>.",
            "Before and after <i>Elohai nezor</i> I say <i>Malkenu Elohenu,</i> and finish the Eighteen Benedictions with <i>Aseh lemaan shemeka</i> which was said by Samuel, and <i>yehi le-razon shetazilenu ha-yom u-be-kol yom</i> which was said by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi.",
            "In <i>Aleinu L'Shabeach</i> I have a tradition to say <i>umoshav yekaro</i> etc.",
            "I say <i>Bameh madlikin</i> every Sabbath, even when a holiday falls on Friday. ",
            "In the prayer <i>El Adon,</i> I say <i>Baruk u-meborak befi kol neshamah,</i> omitting the word <i>hu</i> in order to have five words in this line as in the preceding one. And I say <i>hesed we-rahamim lifne kebodo</i> and not <i>kise kebodo,</i> because the word <i>kise</i> is used in the line <i>zekut u-mishor lifne kiseo</i>.",
            "",
            "The right formula for <i>Shemini Azeret</i> is <i>et shemini azeret hag ha-zeh</i>. ...",
            "",
            "For the celebration of the <i>seder</i> on Passover night I have composed a short table with my name on it, and I have composed a <i>tehinah</i> which has been copied in many prayer books."
        ],
        [
            "A woman after living with her husband for many years became afflicted with catamenial discharges. She menstruated after every contact, and her husband could not cohabit with her any longer <br><b><i>Q</i>. Could he divorce her under compulsion if he were willing to pay her the ketubah? Does the <i>herem</i> of Rabbenu Gershon, which prohibits divorce by coercion, apply to every case, or may this case be excluded because Rabbenu Gershon did not intend to prevent a man from having children? We are inclined to permit the husband to divorce his wife by force, because the rabbis of Poland permitted a man to divorce a woman who became insane.</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. I know very well the case concerning the insane wife referred to. Sometime ago a young man from France (or Italy) whose wife became insane, migrated to Poland. Here he pursued his studies. Two years after his arrival, he was approached by matrimonial agents with a proposition to marry another woman. The young man accepted. The father of the girl, however, would not agree to the match unless the rabbis of Poland permitted him to divorce his insane wife. The young man, with the air of a suffering hero, went from one rabbi to another to procure a dispensation. I rejected his plea, although the other rabbis sustained it. However, I made no protest against the action of the rabbis because, at the time, I could not refute their interpretation of Rabbenu Gershon's decree. The reason I refused to join them in signing the dispensation was merely that I thought it not proper to allow the young man to marry a new wife after he had deserted his old one in her derangement.",
            "Now, however, I can disprove the opinion of the rabbis by a ruling of Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi: ",
            "Samuel ben Azriel of Mayence, whose wife became insane, was seeking a dispensation to divorce her. He pleaded his case before Simhah ben Samuel, who in turn sought the opinion of Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi. The latter in his reply rigorously enforced the decree of Rabbenu Gershon against polygamy. He would not permit the husband to marry again although his wife was incurably insane.",
            "The rabbis, I therefore maintain, were wrong in their decision. For even if the insane woman knew how to take care of the bill of divorce, the husband was obliged to care for her in her helpless state. I would grant such a permit only if her father or other relatives were willing to take care of her.",
            "The wife in question cannot be coerced to take a divorce, since the decree of Rabbenu Gershon would not allow it. However, an effort could be made to induce her to accept the divorce of her own free will. "
        ],
        [
            "<i>Q<small>1</small></i>. May a teacher, in whose family a death has occurred, teach his pupils during shibah? <br> <i>Q<small>2</small></i>. May one partner keep the store open when the other one is observing shibah, and share the profits with him?",
            "<i>A<small>1</small></i>. A teacher may teach his pupils during shibah. First, one who teaches children derives no pleasure from the Torah he transmits to them, because his entire attention is concentrated on their behavior. Second, the parents of the children have the right not to pay him his tuition fee for the rest of the season if they object to the interruption of the teaching. Should he even offer them a substitute for the week of shibah, they may object on the ground that the children would not readily adapt themselves to a new teacher."
        ],
        [
            "<small>Response to Q<small>2</small> in previous responsum:</small><br><i>A<small>2</small></i>. Only working was prohibited during shibah, but not doing business. However, since the first three days of the shibah were set for weeping, the execution of business was prohibited, both in person or by a representative; and after the three days, the mourner is not allowed to do the business in person but his partner may do the business for him."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is it customary to wait for kiddush and the evening meal on Shemini-Azereth eve until it is quite dark?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. I never heard of such a custom; yet it would be proper to do so in order to avoid making the benediction <i>lesheb ba-sukkah</i>."
        ],
        [
            "Nathan, son of Israel Lieberman, promised his daughter Dinah in marriage to Samuel ben Baruk of Cracow, whom the matrimonial agents introduced as one possessing the finest qualities, both as to integrity and general ability, but who in reality was a gambler and a drunkard. ",
            "When the father of the bride learned of this, he went to Cracow to break the engagement. The friends and relatives of the bridegroom, however, threatened that they would put him under a ban and that they would collect from him the fine prescribed for breaking the marriage contract. Not being able to combat them, he lent his ear to the more peaceful friends of the bridegroom, who told him that the groom was still young and would reform under the influence of a good wife. Under the circumstances he called the bridegroom and exacted an oath that he would no longer gamble or drink to excess.",
            "Two weeks after his marriage the husband relapsed into his bad habits and began to visit gentile drinking places, drink ritually forbidden wine, and come home drunk. This disgusted his wife so much that she refused to live with him. He had become altogether repugnant to her, and she wished to be divorced from him. <br><i>Q</i>. a) Is repugnance sufficient ground to force her husband to give her a bill of divorce? <br>b) Could he be forced to divorce her because he did not keep his promise given under oath to live a virtuous life? <br>c) If not, could she be compelled to live with him under the circumstances?",
            "<i>A</i>. a) The husband cannot be compelled to grant her a bill of divorce on the ground of repugnance caused by his drunkenness and visiting gentile saloons. Were he even to become a convert, he could not be forced to divorce her. A husband could be coerced to grant his wife a bill of divorce only were he to strike her, maltreat her, or become afflicted with an offensive odor, but not for mental cruelty. <br>b) Not fulfilling his special promise under the oath to live an upright life is no ground for divorce either.",
            "c) However, she cannot, under the circumstances, be compelled to live with him. Her dowry and other belongings which she brought from her father's home should remain hers. If any of the things mentioned in her ketubah were lost, the husband is to be held responsible. The money of the dowry meanwhile is to be put in a trust, the interest of which shall be collected by her. And if they do not come to an understanding at the end of one year, the trust should be turned over to her."
        ],
        [
            "A man has to attend to the funeral of his parent and the circumcision of his son. <br><b><i>Q</i>. To which must be given the preference?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The law frees an <i>onen</i> from such duties as praying and the like, and not from circumcising his son. Therefore the circumcision of his son must take place first. Especially nowadays, when undertakers attend to the funeral, he must circumcise his son before the burial."
        ],
        [
            "It is customary to call a father to the Torah on the same Sabbath on which he has to circumcise his son. On the other hand, a mourner is not called to the Torah on Sabbath. A mourner who begot a son that was to be circumcised on Sabbath asked: <br><b><i>Q</i>. May he be called to the Torah on that Sabbath?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The law does not actually require calling the father who is to circumcise his son on the Sabbath to the Torah; therefore, he should not be called when he is in mourning. This would not appear as mourning in public, which is not permitted on Sabbath, because as not everybody is called to the Torah on every Sabbath, the congregation would not notice that he was not called to the Torah on account of mourning."
        ],
        [
            "Question: If one has a headache (lit. “his head is heavy”), may he sit and eat with his head uncovered?",
            "Response: I know of no prohibition against reciting a blessing without [wearing] a head covering. Yet it was obvious to Maharai (=R. Yisrael Isserlein) that it is forbidden to invoke God’s name without the head covered, and I do not know whence [he infers that]. Now I have found that it is written in tractate Soferim (14:15) that there is a dispute: “A shabby person whose knees are visible or whose clothing is torn, or one whose head is uncovered, may lead the prayers (“pores et ha-Shema”), but some say that one may lead with knees [showing] or torn clothes, but not with an uncovered head. And he may not let mention [of God’s name] leave his mouth.” R. Yeruham wrote at the end of §16 that it is forbidden to recite a blessing with an uncovered head. ",
            "If not for the fact that I do not usually dispute earlier authorities unless there is a great authority to support me, I would incline toward leniency and in favor of reciting blessings with an uncovered head. Even the recitation of Shema is permitted, for it states in Midrash Rabba (Vayikra §27): R. Berekhya said: A flesh-and-blood king sends his charter to the province, what do they do? All residents of the province stand up, uncover their heads, and read it with fear, awe, trembling, and perspiration. But the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Israel: Recite the Shema, My charter. I do not trouble you to read it standing or with your heads uncovered. This clearly implies that it is not forbidden to uncover one’s head; rather, He did not impose [an uncovered head] as a stringency. But what can I do? They have already ruled this to be forbidden.",
            "Yet I am astonished that they treat uncovering the head as forbidden even when not praying. I do not know whence they derived this, for we find no prohibition against an uncovered head except in the case of a woman, as stated in the chapter “Ha-madir” (Ketubot 72b), and that it reflects piety (midat hasidut, i.e., not actually required by law) not to walk four cubits with an uncovered head. Yet this is specifically walking four cubits, as stated in the chapter “Kol Kitvei” (Shabbat 118b): “R. Hanina said: I deserve it, for I did not walk four cubits with an uncovered head.” This reflects piety, like all of the other examples of “I deserve” listed there. Further evidence is from the first chapter of Kiddushin (31a), which rules: R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: It is forbidden to walk four cubits with an upright posture, as it is stated: ‘The whole world is filled with His glory’ (Yeshayahu 6:3). R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua would not walk four cubits with his head uncovered. He would say: ‘The divine presence is above my head.’ This implies that specifically walking with an erect posture is forbidden, but it is not forbidden to do so with one’s head uncovered. Rather, R. Huna was stringent with himself, motivated by piety. Nowadays, the opposite is the case: they are not careful about avoiding an erect posture. On the contrary, the proud and the rich walk around with their heads held high, but they are careful about uncovering their heads—not because of piety, but because they think this is the Jewish religion.",
            "I have also found written that this statement about an uncovered head only applies out under the open sky. This is a reasonable explanation of the case of the erect posture—even though the entire world is filled with His glory, nevertheless, one does not look as though he is ignoring his Maker except when he walks out under the open sky. It is there that one must remember and maintain vigilance. And even though R. Isserlein wrote that there is no distinction between home and courtyard, for the whole world is filled with His glory, this only applies to the case of invoking God’s name. Indeed, it stands to reason that refraining from invoking God’s name with an uncovered head reflects piety, much like the case of walking four cubits in the open air. I have also found this written in the name of R. Meir [of Rothenburg], namely, that this is all a matter of pious practice, although R. Peretz wrote that one should object to someone entering the synagogue with an uncovered head. Moreover, Tur does not state “and he shall cover his head” except with regard to prayer, not with regard to the recitation of the Shema. But what can I do? The people practice this as a prohibition, and I have no authority to be lenient in their presence.",
            "I have heard of a sage who would study Torah with his head uncovered, saying that the weight was too heavy for him. Nevertheless, it seems to me that although it is not forbidden, and it is not even an act of piety if one is not invoking God’s name, a Torah scholar should still be cautious, for the people perceive it as laxity and permissiveness, as though he transgressed the Jewish religion. Even if he is studying in his room, he should not rely on this, lest an ignoramus see him and make light of him. It is not for naught that they say that anything forbidden because of how it looks (mar’it ayin) is even forbidden in the innermost chambers. ",
            "Now I will disclose the shame of Ashkenazim. Certainly one who drinks libation wine (yeyn nesekh) in a gentile’s inn, and eats fish cooked in their vessels, and who is considered strict if he trusts the innkeeper’s wife when she says that she did not cook anything else in them, is not under any suspicion. We do not investigate him, and we treat him with respect if he is rich and powerful. But one who eats and drinks only kosher food, but he does so with his head uncovered, is perceived to be a deviant. Therefore, “the wise man has his eyes in his head” (Kohelet 2:14) and will know to protect himself so that they do not attack him. If placing something heavy on his head will weigh upon him, he should cover his head with a garment of fine linen or silk. ",
            "Still, it seems reasonable that even one who wishes to recite a blessing over consumption (Birkat ha-nehenin) at night, when he has no hat on, or while he is bathing, it is sufficient for him to cover his head with his hands, even though one major authority has recorded that this is forbidden, and R. Isserlein cites him. Their proof is that Rabbeinu Tam, when he was bathing in warm water and would drink, would cover himself with a garment over the place of his heart,  not with his hands. But this is no proof, for the reason this is not considered covering is that it is normal for someone to place his hands on his heart, and one who sees this will not know that one needs to cover his heart, or will imagine that he did not really cover the area over the heart. However, since it is discernable, it is sufficient to use the hand as a cover above his head, especially given what I have written, namely, that this is not a prohibition but merely a matter of piety. It is therefore sufficient to use the hand as a cover in an impromptu fashion.  "
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. How is the scribe to act with regard to the inverted <i>nunin</i> (letter N) found in Numbers 10:35, 36, and with the additional <i>nunin,</i> inserted by some scribes?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. I have found twelve different forms in the many Torah Scrolls I have examined; four of these forms are kosher, two are kosher but ought to be corrected, the other six forms make the Sefer Torah unholy and useless (pasul), unless erased and written in the correct form.",
            "The following are the twelve forms: <br><img src=\"\">"
        ],
        [
            "A father-in-law signed a document whereby he gave his son-in-law two seats in a synagogue, one for himself, next to his own, and one for his daughter, in the women's compartment.",
            "Subsequently the father-in-law wished to accommodate his own son with a seat in the synagogue, whereupon he tried to make three seats out of the two used by him and his son-in-law.",
            " The latter was provoked by the scheme and would not give up any portion of his place, as, he contended, the contract called for a full seat. ",
            "The father-in-law summoned the witnesses who signed the contract; and they testified that the understanding at the time had been that the two seats were eventually to be made into three, and that the term seat used in the contract did not connote the accepted meaning of the term, but merely suggested that he would provide a spot in the synagogue for his son-in-law to sit on.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Can witnesses to a written contract change the meaning of the common usage of a word by oral testimony?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Words or terms used in a contract must be strictly construed in their accepted meaning; they cannot be modified by any oral testimony. Therefore, the father-in-law has no right to make three seats out of the two."
        ],
        [
            "<i>Q</i>. a) May the milk milked on the Sabbath by a gentile be used the next day if it was a holiday (text: Pentecost)? <br><b><i>Q</i>. b) May the milk milked by a gentile the first day of a holiday be used the same day?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. a) The milk may not be used for the holiday.",
            "<i>A</i>. b) The milk may be used on the same day."
        ],
        [
            "A Jew was carrying a pitcher of wine; by reason of the motion its exterior became in some parts moist enough to moisten other things. A gentile then touched a moist spot on the exterior of the pitcher.<br><b><i>Q</i>. Did the wine of the pitcher become prohibited or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Since it cannot be established that the spot that was moist enough to moisten other things which the gentile touched was continuous on the exterior of the pitcher through the interior until it made connection with the wine, therefore the wine is kosher. Should such a connection be proven, the wine would be prohibited."
        ],
        [
            "A blind man was puzzled whether the object of lighting the Hanukkah candles is to make the historic event public, and since he cannot see, therefore he is not obliged to expose them to others; or since nobody is allowed to enjoy the light of the candles, and the command thereof is just the lighting, must he too light them? He submitted the question to Luria. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Is a blind man obliged to light the Hanukkah candles or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although the blind man cannot see the light of the candles, yet he must light them because other people can see them. This ruling is deduced from the commandment of <i>tzitzit,</i> where \"seeing\" is expressly ordered, and a blind man must observe the law because others can see the garment. Therefore, if the blind man lives with other people who light the Hanukkah candles, it is best that he participate with them in buying the candles, whereas they say the benediction. If he is married his wife should light the candles for him; and if he has no wife and lives by himself, he must light the candles with someone to help him. For the blind man is obliged to observe all the laws of the Torah. Otherwise he might be regarded as excommunicated."
        ],
        [
            "One provided an <i>erub</i>, which permits preparing meals for the Sabbath on a holiday occurring on a Friday. <br><b><i>Q</i>. May he also slaughter an animal on that Friday, to use the meat on the Sabbath? In other words, does the erub that permits cooking on holidays for the Sabbath also include slaughtering?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Since the <i>erub</i> specifies only cooking, baking, and lighting candles, slaughtering is not permitted. Even weak and delicate people ought to be denied the privilege of slaughtering on the holiday for the use of the Sabbath, in order to prevent them from sharpening the knives and from covering the blood with earth, not prepared before the holiday. Should the slaughtering be distinctly mentioned in the erub it would be permitted."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. a) May business be transacted on <i>hol ha-moed,</i> particularly when the principal fairs occur during these days?</b>",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. b) If a grain of wheat was found on the mazah dough, would it turn the dough into <i>hamez?</i></b>",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. c) If a grain of wheat was found on salted meat, may the meat be used on Passover?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. a) It is permitted to conduct business on hol ha-moed when a principal fair, or even a special fair, occurs during these days. Otherwise, one is allowed to do business on hol ha-moed by keeping the doors of the store partly closed; and the merchandise sold must be for the use of the holiday only.",
            "<i>A</i>. (b and c) the dough and the meat must be considered leaven and should be burned.",
            "Note: the three questions were submitted to Luria by Solomon ben Judah."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Is a great grandfather qualified to act as a witness?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. A great grandfather is qualified to act as a witness."
        ],
        [
            "Q. If one buried his dead after the night prayer but before nightfall, may that day be counted as one of the seven days of mourning; or is the rule the same as in the case of a kinsman, who has learned within thirty days after the night prayer of a death that occurred in his family, who must then count the seven days of mourning from the next day?",
            "<i>A</i>. I hold that if the tidings of the death reached the kinsman before sundown, he may count that day in the seven days of mourning. At any rate, so far as the question is concerned, the day the dead was buried is to be counted in the seven days of mourning. For, although the night prayer had already been said in the synagogue, it could not determine the day for the mourner, because he could not have said it until the dead was buried."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. If the menses began after the night prayer, while it was yet broad daylight, may that day be reckoned as one of the five menstrual days, after which the women are allowed to change their underwear, or does the counting begin with the next day? In other words, is the reciting of the night prayer a determining factor in establishing the end of the day?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. In places where the women count five days for their menstrual period they may change their underwear on the fifth day, even if the menses began after the night prayer. And in places where they count only four days and the woman herself has said the night prayer with the congregation, she should follow the stricter practice and start counting the four days from the next day; but if she has not said the night prayer, she may count the remainder of that day as one of the four days."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What is the correct way of waving the lulab?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. There is a good deal of discussion among rabbinic authorities with regard to this question. But the proper way is to wave the lulab thrice up and down and thrice to and fro, making three motions at the first to-and-fro waving. He who waves the lulab otherwise is to be considered an ignoramus."
        ],
        [
            "A liver was cooked without being previously salted. <br><b><i>Q</i>. May it be used?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. It was never directly permitted to cook liver without being salted. However, it is permissible to be used after having been so cooked as a <i>di-abad</i> (post factum)."
        ],
        [
            "<i>Q</i>. What are the rules governing the Hanukkah candles? <br><small>(An abstract from \"Yam Shel Shelomoh\")</small>",
            "<i>A</i>. The candles should be lit between sunset and the end of shopping time; never later than midnight. No meal is to be eaten nor any study engaged in until after the candles have been lit.",
            "On Friday the candles should be lit in the synagogue before the afternoon prayer.",
            "If the lights have been extinguished they need not be relit, except on Friday. The lights should not be used for any purpose whatsoever, but if once extinguished they may be relit for personal use.",
            "The lighting of the candles by the head of the household is sufficient for the entire family. Yet, strictly religious people light a candle for each member of the family, and the still more pious add a candle every day and a candle for every member of the family.",
            "A man who remains in a hotel as a guest, whose family lights the candles at home, must light them without saying the benedictions. A son-in-law living with his wife's parents should light his own candles in his bedroom.",
            "The candles should be placed near the doorway, not higher than ten palms from the floor and not lower than three. They should be lit from left to right. In the synagogue the candles should be put in the candlestick, placed at the south wall, and lit from left to right.",
            "The benediction should be recited before the candles are lit. After the lighting of the first candle, <i>Ha-nerot halalu</i> should be said while the rest are kindled, by other members of the family if desired. One candle may be lit with another, but if the <i>shamash</i> has been extinguished it should not be relit with a Hanukkah candle.",
            "A house that has two entrances does not require lights at each entrance. Old earthen candlesticks should not be used. Olive oil or any other kind of oil may be used instead of candles. Wax should be used in preference to tallow. It would be proper to buy the wax of drippings of the candles in the synagogue; the money should then be donated to charity. One should be careful not to buy the wax drippings of candles in gentile churches for this purpose. Although these may be bought for commercial use, it would be repugnant to use them for the Hanukkah lights.",
            "The Sabbath candles have preference over the Hanukkah candles."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Which is the correct formula of the benediction for searching the leaven, <i>al biur</i> or <i>le-baer?</i></b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Either formula is correct, because either one expresses the future tense. However, <i>al biur</i> was accepted in practice in order to correct the wrong impression of the people, who thought that <i>al biur</i> expresses the past tense."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. At what time and at what place should the leaven be burned on the eve of Passover?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The burning of the leaven must be done before noon, i.e., before 12 o'clock. And it should take place outside the house, for no benefit is to be derived therefrom, as for example, warming the home."
        ],
        [
            "In order to assist the people in conducting the seder in the right order without spending too much time studying its arrangement, Luria composed a mnemonic table which indicated the details of the procedure. The table is a digest of the laws governing the seder and was written in acrostic style. The initials of certain words taken in order form his own name, the name of his father and the name of his grandfather: Shelomoh ben Rabbi Yehiel Luria, Shelomoh Rabbi Isaac."
        ],
        [
            "Abraham, a relative of Luria, who held a royal grant for many years as tax collector, was outbidden by his competitors. His debtors then refused to pay the outstanding accounts. Abraham demanded that his competitors recompense him for his lost debts, or return to him the farming of the taxes. A court of learned rabbis decided the case in Abraham's favor. But a certain rabbi advised the others that since competition is legal, they did not have to return the royal grant to Abraham, nor did they have to pay for the damages he had sustained—because the damages were caused by them indirectly, and indirect damages are not recoverable under Jewish law. They then refused to submit to the decision of the court, whereupon Abraham sent the case to Luria. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Could one recover damages based upon the above stated facts?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The right of competition is not statutory. It was only established by a <i>takkanah</i> in compliance with the rules and regulations of the various governments. And the takkanah permits competition only where the out-bidden party might sustain a loss of prospective profits, but it does not allow competition if other losses might be caused to the losing party. The latter is then protected by the laws against unfair competition. <br>Therefore, either Abraham should be given back the farming of the taxes, or if his competitors insist on the right granted to them by the takkanah, then they must pay him the damages he sustained."
        ],
        [
            "Luria quoted from his comprehensive work \"Yam Shel Shelomoh\" concerning the procedure of <i>chalitzah</i>:",
            "The ceremony of <i>chalitzah</i> must be enacted in a public place; a synagogue is preferable. The ceremony of <i>chalitzah</i> must take place between the afternoon prayer and the evening prayer.",
            "The place must be reserved a day before the ceremony by the five judges who will act at the <i>chalitzah</i>. The chief judge must then declare the place legal for the occasion by saying: Here is the place where the <i>chalitzah</i> will be performed tomorrow. Then he must rehearse with the others the order in which they are to sit at the ceremony. There must be five judges to perform the <i>chalitzah</i> ceremony; three of them must be ordained rabbis and the other two may be laymen. They must not be related to one another nor to the parties concerned. A man who is blind in one eye cannot act as judge among the three ordained, but he may be one of the other two.",
            " On the day of the <i>chalitzah</i> the chief judge should sit at one end of the room and the other two ordained judges should sit near him, one to the right and the other to the left. The other judges should be seated on a separate bench nearby. The audience remains standing at the other end of the room. A small bench should be placed for the yabam and the widow. Her face must be covered with a veil, and she should not spit until told by the judges.",
            "On being questioned by the presiding judge they must stand up. The question whether they would like to marry each other must be answered in the negative. They must assert that their refusal to marry comes of their free will. Should they have vowed not to marry one another the vow must be dissolved. Upon questioning the widow whether or not she has been fasting that day, she must answer that she did not fast.",
            "The yabam must not be younger than thirteen years and one day, and the widow not younger than twelve years and one day. The ceremony cannot take place before three months after the death of her husband.",
            "A shoe for the right foot made from the leather of a clean animal is then given to the yabam and he raises it in order to gain possession thereof. The sexton then washes the right foot of the yabam and puts the shoe on his foot and ties it. The yabam then stands up against the wall and the chief judge teaches him to say: <i>Lo hafazti</i> (I do not desire to marry her:—Deuteronomy, 25-8), and the widow he teaches to say: <i>Lo abah</i> (He will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me:—ib., 25-7), and then he should read with her: <i>Maen yebami le-hakim le-ahiw shem be-lsrael</i> (My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel:—ib.). The widow then lowers herself to the floor and unties the lace and removes the shoe, from his foot with her right hand. If she lacks one arm she may use her teeth to untie the shoe. She dashes the shoe on the floor and the judge tells her to spit on the floor in front of the yabam.",
            "The judge then reads: \"So should it be done to the man that doth not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel: The house of him who had his shoe loosed.\" The phrase \"who had his shoe loosed\" is repeated three times by all three judges. The ceremony is then finished with a benediction by the presiding judge: <i>Baruk Hu asher kideshanu be-mizwotaw we-hukaw shel Abraham abinu,</i> omitting <i>Adonai Elohenu melek ha-olam</i>.",
            "He then tells her that she is allowed to marry and hands her a bill of <i>chalitzah</i>. In Poland no such document is given her."
        ],
        [
            "<b><i>Q</i>. When a competent authority has declared a firstborn animal blemished, may it be sold alive to a gentile in order to prevent the possibility of having to bury it in case it be found <i>terefah</i>?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. No; to sell it alive to a gentile would be a profanity, since the animal was initially destined as a holy sacrifice."
        ],
        [
            "One vowed to abstain from eating meat and drinking wine during the three weeks. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Does the vow prohibit him from bathing during this period also, since he evidently intended to restrict himself during the entire time in the manner required for the nine days, when no bathing is allowed; or, since he did not specify bathing in his vow, may he bathe until the first of Ab?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. He may bathe until the first day of Ab, as the law does not prohibit bathing during the nine days. The scholars who speak of the theories for abstention from meat and wine during the three weeks do not mention abstention from bathing even with regard to the nine days. Obviously, because failing to eat meat and drink wine, and neglecting to bathe, do not express the same sentiment. While the former expresses the feeling of grief and distress, the latter expresses that of sheer mourning. The only reason why bathing is prohibited during the nine days is because the people of the diaspora thus obliged themselves; and the custom cannot be changed although not in accordance with the law. A nation or a majority of a nation may place upon itself restrictions which are not permitted by law. For instance, cohabitation of a mourner with his wife even on the Sabbath was prohibited by the people themselves. However, no individual has the right to make restrictions for himself. It is enough to obey the rules and regulations of the wise men. Therefore, if the man in question is accustomed to taking a bath every Friday he should not be allowed to abstain during the entire three weeks, even if he so expressed himself in his vow."
        ],
        [
            "A and B owed money to C on a note. A paid C the full amount and received the note as evidence of payment. On the strength of this note A demanded that B refund him the share of the money A had paid for him to C. <br>B pleaded that he had given A his share of the debt some time before in order to pay C the debt in full. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Should the claimant take the oath and recover his claim, or should the defendant take the oath and relieve himself of paying?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although A has the note in his possession, B has the preference of taking the oath to free himself from paying. The note in hand of A does not indicate any obligation on B's part; hence B did not mind leaving it with A."
        ],
        [
            "People who were traveling the whole day on the road, where water was scarce, used to wash their hands ceremoniously in the morning, with the intent that the washing should comply with the requirements of law for the rest of the day. Others would use grass wet with dew as a substitute for water in the ceremonial washing of the hands. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Is either case right or not?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Strictly speaking, the washing of the hands in the morning for the requirements of the whole day would be unlawful. However, if one has washed his hands in the morning with such intent and has been careful throughout the day not to soil them, he may have his meals and say his prayers without washing them over again, in the following two instances: First, if no water is obtainable within a radius of four miles. Second, if he has been traveling in the company of gentiles and would not leave them out of fear of going by himself, as the roads now are not safe for Jewish travelers.",
            "Cleaning the hands with wet grass before meals would be regarded as disgracing the law concerning washing the hands. It would constitute a transgression of the law, and the benediction uttered thereon would be like mentioning the name of God in vain."
        ],
        [
            "One touched the water in a bucket with his hands. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Was the water rendered unclean ceremonially?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. The purity of the water was not destroyed by the touch, and it may be used for washing the hands."
        ],
        [
            "In the year 1569 Moses Lifschiz, who was floating rafts from Brest to Danzig, was asked by a friend to take along a certain lad by the name of Hirsch and let him off at Brest, Kuyavsk. The lad landed one mile away from his destination, but reached the raft again the second day by boat. He then became uncontrollably wild; he quarreled with the entire crew of gentile lumberjacks; and while ashore he struck a gentile boy during an argument. The crew threatened to throw the lad into the river if the employer would not punish him. But as Moses Lifschiz was unable to catch the boy, he ordered one of the crew to bring the lad in for punishment. But the youth, while trying to elude his pursuer, fell into a ditch and was drowned. Moses was much grieved over this accident, and he did the best he could under the circumstances. The body was taken out of the ditch and buried in accordance with the laws of Jewry. Still Moses felt himself responsible for the death of the lad and began to do penance according to the dictates of his own conscience. After a lengthy period of time, not having regained his peace, he came to the bet-din of Moses Abraham ben Judah ha-Levi, Ephraim ben Abraham of Lithuania, and Nathan ben Moses, and asked them to prescribe the right kind of penance. When the truth of his tale was attested by Simhah ben Menahem, the bet-din referred Moses Lifschiz to Luria. <br><b><i>Q</i>. What shall I do to have my sin forgiven?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Inasmuch as your object in asking a member of the crew to bring the boy to you was to save him from the hands of the lumber crew, who had threatened his life, you cannot be held responsible for the accidental death of the boy, which was caused by his own rashness. You have not done any wrong for which you ought to repent. On the contrary, you tried to save another's life, and such acts should be encouraged. Else no one would ever attempt to rescue his neighbor from trouble. I therefore decree a ban upon anybody who may ever rebuke you, saying you were guilty in the death of Hirsch."
        ],
        [
            "One forgot to say the benediction <i>bore nefashot</i> after his luncheon. Meanwhile he passed water, and just before he recited the benediction <i>asher yazar</i> he reminded himself that he had not yet uttered the benediction after his luncheon. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Which of the two benedictions should he say first?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. He should say first the benediction <i>asher yazar;</i> the more frequent always takes precedence."
        ],
        [
            "With the rise of the kabalistic school people began to mysticize religious practices. They spun their arguments into niceties, detailing them so minutely that even great scholars were misled and could not detect their fallacies. Not infrequently they encroached upon the realm of law, seeking to change it by mystic interpretation. A definite case was brought to the attention of Luria by Mordecai ben Tanhum. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Is it proper to don the <i>tefillin shel yad</i> while sitting, as maintained by some people?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. This practice was originated by the kabalists, who see significance in every petty thing; they pretend to know the mysticism of the Zohar while deficient in rabbinics. Have no recourse to them, but follow the teaching of the Talmud and the accredited rabbinical authorities. Were Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai himself present with us this day we would not incline our ear to him, for he (the Zohar) decided in many cases against the customs of the ancients. The practice of donning the <i>tefillin shel yad</i> while sitting is not mentioned in the Talmud nor in post-talmudic literature. And I have a tradition from my great father-in-law Rabbi Kalonymus to don both the <i>tefillin shel yad</i> and the <i>tefillin shel rosh</i> while standing."
        ],
        [
            "A's wife pledged an article with B for a loan. She stated at the time that the article belonged to a gentile who had borrowed money on it from her on interest, and this interest, she promised, would be turned over to B.",
            "When the interest was due A refused to pay it. He asserted that the article was his own and that his wife, in order to obtain the loan, had made a false statement. She now sustained the statement of her husband. B, on the other hand, would not believe the husband nor the second statement of his wife, and claimed the interest. <br><b><i>Q</i>. Has B the right to collect the interest?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Although shopkeepers nowadays are responsible for the deals made by their wives, because they are assisted by them in their business, yet their statements cannot be accepted against the testimony of witnesses, especially in a case where a biblical law is involved. <br>Therefore, since A himself had never stated that the pledged article belonged to a gentile, he could free himself from paying the interest if he proved by witnesses that the article was his own property. B would then have to forego the interest."
        ],
        [
            "A Jew who held a concession from a gentile for a year, to manufacture and refine salt for him, hired gentiles for the year to boil the salt. They were not to be paid by the day, but by the quantity of the salt they produced. The vessels, however, belonged to the Jew.",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. May he allow his gentile laborers to work on the Sabbath?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. Your emphasis that the vessels belonged to the Jew is of no significance in the question. There is no law that vessels of a Jew must rest on the Sabbath. Therefore, since the gentiles were not hired to do the work on the Sabbath but to produce a certain quantity of salt, they are considered to be working for themselves and they have the right to choose for their rest day either the Sabbath or Sunday. If they choose to rest on Sunday, they may work on the Sabbath, provided the factory is outside the Jewish quarter."
        ],
        [
            "In 1572, during a heated argument at a game of chance, Eliakum ben Samuel of Belz, Poland, called his adversary X \"nadler\", an opprobious epithet reflecting upon the legitimacy of many families.",
            "In the presence of both litigants, Naphtali ben Mattithiah, Judah ben Saul, and Samuel ben Mordecai testified before a court of laymen, Jeruham ben Joseph, Isaac ben Mordecai, and Moses ben Samuel, that they had heard the slanderous tale uttered by Eliakum, and that this was done with the intention of injuring the reputation of X. The court sent a transcript of the testimony, accompanied by two witnesses, Isaac ben Moses and David ben Moses Mordecai, to Isaac of Belz, who validated it; and then it was sent to Rabbi Solomon of Chelem for his opinion. Rabbi Solomon, in turn, sent the case to Luria asking:",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. What kind of punishment should be inflicted upon the calumniator?</b>",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "",
            "<i>A</i>. This traducer, who used the reproachful name of \"nadler\", attaching disgrace to the whole lineage of X, should be lashed in the synagogue, unless he redeem himself by giving said X thirty-nine <i>zehubim,</i> and asking for forgiveness from God and then from X. He should withdraw the insolent appellation in public, and after seven days repair to the cemetery of Lemberg, where X's parents are resting in peace, accompanied by a quorum of ten distinguished men, including the cantor and the sexton, walk, from the entrance of the cemetery to the graves of the deceased, barefooted, and again ask for forgiveness from God and from the dead.",
            "In 1572 a rumor was spread in the city of Byzantium that Jehiel b. Mosheh Meir ha-Kohen had betrothed Rachel, daughter of Hayyim. The girl's father sought the assistance of the bet-din to suppress the rumor. ",
            "Witnesses and the alleged bridegroom testified before the court of Eliakim ben Mordecai, Israel ben Samuel, and Aaron ben Moses, that the rumor had no ground. A transcript of the evidence, signed by the witnesses and the court and approved by Naphtali ben Menahem, was given to the girl. ",
            "When the rumor persisted, another bet-din of Isaac ben Aaron David Frank (cantor of Byzantium), Abraham ben Baruk, and Perez ben Solomon ha-Levi Luria issued a general summons, that whosoever knew aught of this betrothal should come and report to them. As nobody appeared, the bet-din sent the sexton from house to house to question the inhabitants. But nobody knew anything about it. This tribunal again gave the girl an official document to the effect that she had never been betrothed. ",
            "As the second bet-din could not halt the rumor either, Hayyim turned to Luria and asked:",
            "<b><i>Q</i>. Can such a rumor prohibit his daughter from marrying?</b>",
            "<i>A</i>. A rumor originated by one witness should be utterly disregarded and suppressed. In this case all witnesses traced the rumor to the same man. Moreover, I have learned that this man was looking for revenge. He spread the rumor against Rachel, in all likelihood, because her father had informed the government concerning a certain man. I therefore prohibit the spreading of the rumor, and allow the girl to marry even the high priest."
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
            "https://www.sefaria.org"
        ],
        [
            "The Responsa of Solomon Luria, by Simon Hurwitz, N.Y., 1938",
            "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002079379"
        ],
        [
            "Sefaria Community Translation",
            "https://www.sefaria.org"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "תשובות מהרש\"ל",
    "categories": [
        "Responsa",
        "Acharonim"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Teshuva",
        "Paragraph"
    ]
}