Parshas Vayishlach 5785 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

May One Place an X-Mas Tree in his Store or Office building for the Purpose of His Livelihood?

Q:

A frequent question that I’m asked yearly encountered in the United States is regarding Jews who own either a store or residential building and wish to know whether they may place an x-mas tree in a storefront window or at the entrance of the building during the holiday season.

This question is especially relevant to a residential building where only non-Jews reside, and the Jew is the landlord, or a store where only non-Jews shop. May one be lenient here, especially considering that it may help attract customers, or make his tenants happy?

A:

I found a source that would indicate that one must be stringent here, even under difficult circumstances, in the Sefer Otzar Rabbi Chaim Berlin on Yoreh De’ah (§110), where he was asked about a story in which a non-Jew gave his Jewish neighbor his idols and told him to place them in his window to save his house, and possibly even his own life, from being destroyed by an angry mob of non-Jews. (In that case, the questioner wished to know whether he was required to do teshuvah for having done so.)

In response, he cites the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (13a), which states as follows:
R’ Nosson says: On the day that the idol worshippers waive the sales tax, they would announce, “Anyone who takes a wreath and places it on his head or on his donkey’s head in honor of the idol will be exempt from the tax; otherwise, he will not be exempt.” What should a Jew who is present there do? If he puts it on, he derives benefit; if he does not put it on, he is benefitting the idol.

Rashi and Tosafos explain that when the Gemara says that “if he puts it on, he derives benefit,” this refers to him smelling the wreath, which was made from plants that were used to serve avodah zarah. That which he is exempted from the tax is not considered deriving benefit from the idol, as the money was his all along; thus, he is not benefiting directly from the idol but rather just avoiding financial loss.

R’ Chaim Berlin, however, notes that the Tur (Yoreh Deah, 149:3) explains that the benefit here is because they are waiving his tax. According to this interpretation, even the prevention of financial loss is considered a benefit. See the Bach there, who concludes that even Tosafos agrees that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the money. See further in Taz (2) on this matter. See also further in this responsa for what R’ Chaim Berlin writes about using an idol to save oneself from death.

In practice, Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein shlit”a, discusses a question of someone who wanted to place an idol in his store to save himself, and addresses whether it is permitted to use an idol to save one’s life. Based on the above ruling from R’ Chaim Berlin, writes that there may be some grounds for leniency.

However, in our case of the storeowner wishing to attract customers, where the only consideration is financial gain, we do not see grounds to permit this.

Although I have heard that Rav Yisroel Belsky ztz”l, investigated the matter and concluded that the x-mas tree itself is no longer worshipped but is merely placed as a memorial or remembrance, nonetheless it is highly improper for a Jew to keep such a tree in his store.

However, Rav Noach Isaac Oelbaum shlit”a, author of Minchas Chen, wrote to me on this topic, stating as follows:
In principle, it would appear permissible to place an x-mas tree inside the store, as it is not a religious symbol of idol worship. Therefore, from a halachic standpoint, there is room to be lenient. It is preferable, however, if in practice one could fulfill “distance yourself from ugliness and anything resembling it.”

Similarly, Divrei Dovid (1:18) discusses whether it is permitted to use “x-mas lights”—electric-colored lights that are manufactured in the Far East, and supposedly, primarily for the purpose of decorating x-mas trees on the Christian holiday—to decorate a sukkah or to hang in a Beis Haknesses. He writes that it is permitted, since the tree is merely a symbol and not worshipped. Even more so considering that items that are only meant for beautifying the person worshiping are not prohibited, as explained in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, 139:11) that the clothing worn by priests who enter idolatrous places are ornamental only and do not require annulment. Although the Shulchan Aruch prohibits the usage of candles that were used for avodah zarah in a Beis Haknesses, in our case of the tree lights it is even better, as they were never used for idol worship.

Based on the above, Divrei Dovid further writes: From this, one may be lenient regarding scented cardboard x-mas trees intended for hanging in cars. This is not a concern, for we have clarified that the tree is not worshipped but is merely a symbol for their holiday, and thus it is permitted to hang for its scent.

This is further clarified in Beis Avi (Vol. 5, Yoreh Deah, §99), who writes on this topic (of x-mas trees): At first glance, I thought this was directly related to idolatry, as “oso ha’ish” (Yoshkah), who was hanged on a tree, is why the holiday night is called “ ניתל—nitzel” (the spelling was changed to ניטל due to the censors). But after investigating, I discovered that it is completely unrelated to worshipping the one who was hanged. It is simply a custom of the non-Jews, for beautification and home decoration, unrelated to any idol worship; it is not worshipped at all, nor is it prayed to.

Beis Avi adds that this fits well with the Rema (141:1), who rules that the cross worn on the neck is not avodah zarah but rather of memorial nature only. Accordingly, we may say the same of a decorated x-mas tree: it is not made for idol worship but for decoration alone. He thus concludes that there is no need to even urge the non-Jews to remove trees at the entrance to the building (where a Jew also lives), as it is not avodah zarah but only a decorative symbol for the home, with no trace of idolatry.

In conclusion, although it is best to avoid using an X-mas tree for advertising in residential spaces, if a significant need arises, there is sufficient basis for leniency as explained.

Is There an Obligation to Remove a Tattoo?

Q:

Is a baal teshuvah who has a tattoo required to have it removed? The question revolves around whether the prohibition of a tattoo applies only at the time of getting it, meaning the prohibition is not ongoing, or if there is a constant prohibition as long as the tattoo remains on the body, and therefore one would be required—even at great expense and physical pain—to have it removed.

A:

The general psak for baalei teshuvah and similar cases is that there is no obligation to remove a tattoo unless it depicts something immodest, particularly in areas where tefillin are placed. In such cases, some Poskim are more stringent, as discussed in Minchas Yitzchak (3:11).

Regarding this issue, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l ruled approximately two weeks before his passing that he did not find any source in the Poskim indicating that one transgresses the prohibition continuously as long as the tattoo remains, and therefore, there is no halachic obligation to remove it.

However, some understand the Tosefta (Makkos 3:9) to mean that removing a tattoo exempts a person from the prohibition, suggesting that one is obligated to remove it. However, most commentaries understand the Tosefta differently, in which case there is no such proof from here.

Another possible source to be stringent and remove the tattoo would be based on the Minchas Chinuch in Mosech HaShabbos (Meleches Mocheik, 4), who writes that if someone removes a tattoo on Shabbos, they are liable, since this is considered a “tikkun—a productive act.” He explains that although the person only transgressed the prohibition when the tattoo was made, nevertheless, it is forbidden for him to keep the tattoo due to chukos ha’amim. This would clearly indicate that one is obligated to remove a tattoo from their body.

Maris ayin is another consideration for why a person should remove a tattoo. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, further clarified that removing a tattoo does not violate the prohibition of self-harm (chavalah), especially when done to rectify a wrongful act.

Nonetheless, most Poskim maintain that a baal teshuvah is not obligated to remove a tattoo, as the prohibition was violated at the time it was done, and there is no ongoing transgression. However, for those who wish to remove it, it is considered praiseworthy, and there is no concern of issur chavalah.

Raw Fish for Sushi: Is It Muktzeh Like Other Raw Fish?

Q:

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 308:32) rules that fish, when raw and uncured (i.e., not salted, pickled, or cooked), are inedible and therefore considered muktzeh machmas gufo on Shabbos. Nowadays, however, there is a type of fish called “sushi” that originated in the Far East and is eaten raw without any preparation. Should such fish be treated as other raw fish and considered muktzeh, or does the fact that some people eat raw fish remove its muktzeh status?

A:

It seems that such fish would not be considered muktzeh machmas gufo, as the fact that some people eat it raw removes its muktzeh status, even for those who do not eat it that way. A proof for this can be derived from the ruling in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 308:31), where raw meat is permitted to be handled on Shabbos because it is fit to chew raw. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid. 125) clarifies that while most people do not eat raw meat, there are individuals who do, and this suffices to allow handling raw meat for everyone.

The same logic applies to raw fish for sushi: if some people eat it raw, it is not considered muktzeh for others. This reasoning was confirmed in discussion with several prominent Poskim.

Additionally, even though some types of raw fish are eaten only when seasoned, they would still not be muktzeh, as seasoning is permissible on Shabbos. Therefore, even in places where raw fish is not commonly consumed, it would not be muktzeh, as it is fit for some people.

However, this applies specifically to fish used for making sushi. Other types of fish that are not eaten raw would still be considered muktzeh. This frequently arises with frozen fish in the freezer, where questions about handling them on Shabbos often occur, such as if they fall out of the freezer. In cases of loss or great need, several leading poskim, including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l and the author of Shevet HaLevi, say that it is permitted to pick up and place in the freezer. See Mishnah Berurah (ibid:127) and Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (11:note 20) for further discussion.

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

Download the PDF -> Parshas Vayishlach