Parshas Balak 5784 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

Wedding on the Night of Shiva Asar B’Tammuz

Q: Due to unforeseen circumstances (in this particular case, the coronavirus), a family was forced to postpone their son’s wedding, and the only available date they found was on the night of Shiva Asar B’Tamuz. They are unsure if it is permissible to have the wedding before sunset on the 17th of Tammuz and continue with dancing and singing into the night.

A: The general ruling is that in cases of need (e.g., lack of halls), it is permitted to start the wedding before sunset, even if the music and dancing continue into the night. The reasoning for this is based on a debate among the Rishonim regarding whether the mourning period of the Three Weeks begins at night or during the day.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:168) writes that it is permitted to start a wedding before sunset in this situation. He reasons that even according to the stringent opinions that the mourning period starts at night, the prohibition of dancing and music only begins when it is clear and noticeable that the mourning has started—i.e., in the morning, once people have begun their fast. Therefore, since everyone agrees that the mourning period does not begin before sundown, it would be permitted to continue even into the night.

Another lenient view allows the wedding to start before sunset and continue afterward, drawing parallels to other halachic leniencies. For instance, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 546:3) permits starting a wedding before Yom Tov and continuing the meal at night, even though it is generally forbidden to get married on Yom Tov due to the principle of “ein mearvin simchah b’simchah” (not mixing one celebration with another)—since the main part of the wedding, the Chuppah, takes place before Yom Tov. While the Mishnah Berurah cites stringent opinions on this matter, the custom is to be lenient so long as the main part of the meal occurs during the day, allowing the dancing to continue into the night.

However, some Poskim, including Shevet Halevi, maintain that one should not be lenient in this matter. R’ Y.S. Elyashiv held that although in principle it is permitted to start the wedding before sunset and let it continue into the night, this should only be relied upon in cases of great need. See further in Responsa of Mishneh Halachos (6:109) and Rivevos Ephraim (1:375).

Conclusion: If there is a significant need, such as the unavailability of other dates, it is permissible to start the wedding before sunset on the 17th of Tammuz and continue the celebration into the night. This leniency is supported by several Poskim, but should be relied upon only in cases of great need.

Faulty Air Conditioner in Rented Summer House

Q: We rented a house in the summer, and the air conditioner didn’t work well—at times not at all. It was exceedingly hot and unbearable to live in. We informed the owners and requested a refund, arguing that the apartment was not functional. The owners claimed that since we waited two days to complain, this indicated that the issue wasn’t significant to us, thereby forfeiting our claim. We argued that we would never agree to stay under such conditions and demanded our money back. Who is correct in this case?

A: At the outset, it is important to note that each case is unique, making it challenging to provide a one-size-fits-all halachic ruling. However, several key points should be considered in such scenarios:

As a general matter, any flaw—as defined by local custom—in the sold or rented product would constitute a mekach ta’us, a faulty transaction, thereby nullifying the transaction. Since people generally do not rent apartments in the summer without an air conditioner, this would nullify his reservation.

However, if the renters do not immediately complain, but continue to use the apartment, this reveals to the owner that the flaw does not bother them too much—and thus their right to cancel the lease is forfeited, as codified in Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 232:3). The question in our case, then, is whether the renters can claim that they only continued living there for lack of better options—and not because it did not bother them.

Responsa of Mishpat Shlomo (4:27) discusses a similar case of a car rental and a non-working air conditioner. He says that if the renter and his family were already in the car, and had no choice but to use the car, it is as if he used the car against his will (oneis), and it does not indicate that they wished to waive their right to a refund. As such, he is still entitled to a payment reduction or other compensation.

In the case of the apartment, however, it remains unclear whether he can claim oines when he remained there for an entire week. R’ Akiva Eiger cites the Machneh Ephraim, who says that if the renter were to have told the owner of the flaw—in our case, the broken air conditioner—then that which he remained in the apartment does not indicate that he forgave his claim. However, Pischei Teshuva (ibid.1) cites the Sefer Galya Maseches (authored by Rabbi Dovid Chemerinsky of Novhardok) who disagree with this. See also Se’ma (ibid.10), who writes that if one buys or rents an item and sees a flaw, but does not immediately complain, he forfeits his right to do so—even if he never used the item. Many Acharonim, however, dispute this point.

Conclusion: If one rents an apartment and the air conditioner does not work, in the summertime all agree that it is considered a flaw, and the renters are entitled to a refund. The key issue is whether the renters’ delay in complaining indicates they accepted the situation. This depends on the specific circumstances, and a beis din should be consulted for an individual assessment.

Office Rental to an Indian with a Buddha Idol

Q: A person who owns a large office space in Israel rented an office to an Indian partner, who went ahead and placed a Buddha idol on a file cabinet, claiming it brings luck and success. Can the Jewish boss allow this, or must he insist on its removal?

A: The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 21a) forbids renting a house to a non-Jew lest he bring an idol inside, based on the prohibition against bringing avodah zarah into one’s home, as it says, “And you shall not bring an abomination into your home” (Devarim 7:26). Tosafos there writes that some were accustomed to being lenient in this halachah, since the prohibition only applies to a residential space, but not a workplace and the like.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 151:10) rules that it is only permitted to rent to a non-Jew for storage purposes and the like, but not for him to live in, since he will then bring idols on a permanent basis. Tosafos also brings one opinion which maintains that this entire prohibition was only said in Eretz Yisroel, and not in chutz l’aretz. Darkei Teshuvah writes that it is best not to rely on this opinion. See further what the Rema (ibid) writes, and the addition from the Shach (17) and Gr”a.

Conclusion: The consensus among some Poskim is to be lenient, arguing that the Buddha idol is not considered true avodah zarah in our times, and that this is an office, not a home. Therefore, if insisting on the removal of the idol would cause significant conflict between the renter and the Jewish owner, it is permitted. However, if the renter will understand, it is preferable to request that they not bring the idol into the office. This is because as a general rule, it is always best to be stringent concerning avodah zarah—especially considering that it may lead to other prohibitions, such as appearing to bow to the idol when picking something up from the floor or making a blessing in its presence.

Take a part in spreading the light!
Email info@kollellihoraah.org for sponsorship opportunities.

To receive this weekly publication via email, Click here or email info@kollellihoraah.org.

Visit www.kollellihoraah.org for:

• Virtual Bais Horaah
• Weekly Q&A
• Seforim publications
• Yisachar Zevulun opportunities
• And more!

Download the PDF -> Parshas Balak