Parshas Behar 5784: Intriguing Questions and Answers

Rabbi Yaakov Aron Skoczylas   -   May 23, 2024

Questions Regarding Haircuts around Lag Baomer

Q: Being that Lag Baomer falls out on Sunday this year, are there any leniencies regarding taking a haircut earlier for Shabbos? As well, are Sephardim who wait to take a haircut until the 34th day of the Omer able to give Ashkenazim haircuts?

A: The Shulchan Aruch and Rema state in Siman 493(2) that on Lag Baomer haircuts and shaving are allowed regardless of whether one keeps the minhag of aveilus during the first or second part of Sefira. This is the minhag of Ashkenazim, although Sephardim wait until the morning of the following day, the 34th day of Sefira. When Lag Baomer falls out on Sunday like this year, the Rema writes that one can be lenient to take a haircut on Friday for the honor of Shabbos. This leniency for Kavod Shabbos is only in this case when Shabbos is close to Lag Baomer, and it does not apply throughout Sefira. And one should note that this is specifically for Friday and not Thursday night. In addition, Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbuch zt”l pointed out that one who shaves on Friday could also shave again on Lag Baomer. There is a dispute among Poskim if it is permitted to take a haircut on Motzei Shabbos, or if one must wait until Sunday. If necessary, one may rely on the lenient view that allows this, since once it was permitted on Friday it does not revert back to being prohibited before becoming permitted again on Sunday. However, the Sephardic Poskim do not permit one to take a haircut even on Friday for the honor of Shabbos since their minhag is to wait until day 34 which is on Monday, see Kaf Hachaim Siman 493:32. Regarding the question of whether a Sephardi could cut the hair of an Ashkenazi person on days when the former is forbidden from cutting his own hair, HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l maintained that it is permissible. This is because the prohibition pertains to receiving a haircut, not giving one. Therefore, there is no issue with giving haircuts during the Sefira period.

Must occupants staying in an apartment, free of charge, reimburse the owner after a fire has damaged his property and furniture?

Q: A family forced to leave their home in the north of Israel was relocated (via the remarkable efforts of askanim and chesed organizations) in an unoccupied, furnished apartment in Yerushalayim. Unfortunately, a fire broke out during their stay, resulting in some property damage. Are the temporary occupants obligated to reimburse the owner for the furniture that was ruined and for repairs to certain areas of the apartment that were charred?

A: The occupants’ obligation will depend on several factors. If receiving the apartment was a complete act of chesed – meaning, the owner consented to the family staying in his home, free of charge, out of a sense of pure kindness and empathy – then the property could possibly be regarded like any mitzvah object borrowed out of great need. When such objects incur accidental damage, the borrower is exempt from having to reimburse the owner. According to great Acharonim, the occupants using the apartment under such circumstances would indeed be regarded as borrowers of a much-needed mitzvah object and would therefore not be held liable for accidental damages. The Nesivos, however, rules that because the evacuees left no collateral with the owner, they would not have the status of borrowers and would remain liable for all damages, despite their situation of great need and despite having received permission to stay in the apartment as a complete chesed from the owner. However, if organizers brokered a deal with the owner and arranged for a donor to pay him full or partial rent, or for the state to release emergency, wartime funds to cover the rent, then we find a dispute among the Acharonim as to the status of the evacuees staying in the apartment. Some regard them as tenants and, as such, rule that they would be liable to pay for the damages. The Imrei Binah, however, writes that even under these circumstances we might still view the evacuees as borrowers who would be exempt from having to reimburse the owner for accidental damages. In conclusion, however, he expresses uncertainty and withholds a final decision. The halachah, therefore, seems to dictate that since the evacuees are living in the apartment under circumstances of great need, we would liken their use of the property to borrowing a much-needed mitzvah object if the owner has indeed extended them this great chesed, free of charge. As such, they would be exempt from paying for accidental damages. Yet if the owner was paid rent sourced from a third party, be it a donor or the state, the nature of the evacuees’ usage is a matter of dispute, and it would be best to arrive at a compromise as to what percentage of the damages they should reimburse.

Giving A Premature Baby Milk from A Non-Jewish Hospital Bank

Q: I was approached by a young woman who gave birth prematurely. Her baby is unable to nurse, however, the mother wants him to only have mother’s milk because of the health benefits. In this situation, can the baby drink from the milk in the hospital bank that is made up of donated non-Jewish milk?

A: In the Rema Yoreh Deah Siman 81:7, it is stated that a Jew should not drink from a gentile as the milk is spiritually contaminated and spiritually affects the heart of a Jew. The Taz 12 also writes that even if there is a reason to permit the consumption of non-kosher food due to danger, an infant should not be allowed to eat non-kosher food as it will affect them as they grow older. The question arises whether an infant is allowed to drink in a situation where the lack of milk could endanger their life. Does it still damage the child, necessitating the use of formula instead? In short, the accepted custom is to follow the ruling by Harav Auerbach and Harav Elyashiv zt”l, which states that once a person is allowed to consume some non-kosher food, there is no spiritual effect on them. Therefore, in the case where milk from a milk bank is medically required and there are no other suitable alternatives for the infant, not only should the infant be fed the milk, but it can also be assured that it will not have any spiritual effect on the infant.

Does a Broken Engagement need to Be Revealed in Shidduchim?

Q: If someone has had a broken engagement, are they obligated to disclose this before the date? Should the shadchan also have to reveal this information? Perhaps we could argue that these things happen and do not necessarily reveal any negative traits about the person. Therefore, it may not be necessary to disclose this information. On the other hand, some people may view this negatively, so does it need to be disclosed?

A: I will answer briefly, as we discussed at length in a previous Q&A that if someone thinks negatively about a particular trait or incident involving one of the parties, even if not everyone will view it negatively, it is important not to withhold this information, as there is a chance that the other party will be unhappy. However, the same distinction that we mentioned in the previous article applies here: the shadchan must mention it at the outset, but the boy or girl could wait until the 3rd or 4th date, as people tend to overlook these matters once they get to know each other a little better. This was the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Kanievsky, and it is also what I heard from my Rebbi, Harav Neventzhal Shlit”a.

Harav Yaakov Skoczylas Shlit”a, the Rosh Kollel of Kollel Lihoraah Yerushalayim is the author of the “Ohel Yaakov” series on numerous halachic topics.

Harav Skoczylas is highly regarded as a reputable Posek and Moreh Tzedek in Yerushalayim, and receives many halachic inquiries from around the globe seeking his guidance and clarification.

Feel free to reach out to the Bais Horaah with any halacha inquiries by emailing halacha@kollellihoraah.org.

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

Contact Information:

Download the PDF -> Parshas Behar YIQV