The laws relating to chametz on Pesach include the prohibition of eating chametz, the obligation to get rid of chametz, and the prohibition of owning chametz. However, it is not clear if these laws all go into effect at the same time. The prohibition of eating chametz and the obligation to get rid of it both begin a number of hours before the holiday starts. However, the Ra’avad is of the opinion that the prohibition of owning chametz applies only during the actual holiday, based on the verse, “No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days” (Shemot 12:19). Rashi, in contrast, maintains that this prohibition too begins in the afternoon, at the same time as the other prohibitions. There is also a difference of opinion as to the minimum amount (shiur) of chametz a person would have to possess in order to transgress the prohibition of ownership. The shiur in this case would seem to be an olive (kezayit). However, there is a general principle that even less than a shiur (chatzi shiur) is biblically prohibited (although the transgressor does not receive lashes). Some maintain that chatzi shiur is forbidden only when someone is doing something with the food (such as eating it), which makes it clear that this amount is significant to him (achshevei). However, if no action is involved (shev ve-al ta’aseh), as is the case with the prohibition of owning chametz, this principle might not apply. If so, owning a small amount of chametz (less than a kezayit) would be permitted on the biblical level. Why should less than a shiur be prohibited? Shouldn’t the criterion, almost by definition, be the full shiur? One of the reasons for this stringency is the fear that someone will start by eating only part of a shiur, but will keep nibbling until, within a relatively short amount of time, he ends up eating an entire shiur. All that he ate combines together (mitztaref), and he is considered to have violated the prohibition from when he began eating. However, when we are dealing with a prohibition of ownership, even if someone ultimately acquires a full shiur, he will transgress only from the point of full acquisition onward, but not retroactively.

The obligation to drink four cups of wine at the Seder is rabbinic. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, these four cups correspond to the four phrases related to freedom which appear in Parshat Va’era (Shemot 6:6-7): “I will take you out (ve-hotzeiti),” “I will save you” (ve-hitzalti), “I will redeem you” (ve-ga’alti), and “I will take you” (ve-lakachti). However, there is a fifth phrase as well in the next verse: “I will bring you” (ve-heveiti). In fact, some people drink a fifth glass of wine at the seder when they recite Hallel HaGadol (The Great Hallel – Tehillim Chapter 136). Some even feel that this is not simply a custom, but rather the ideal way to fulfill the mitzva, as Rabbi Tarfon states (Pesachim 118a), “We recite Hallel HaGadol while holding the fifth cup (prior to drinking it).” Another interpretation of the four cups is that they correspond to the four kingdoms which subjugated the Jews, namely Babylon, Persia/Medea, Greece, and Rome. In the future, G-d will punish these enemies, and they will be forced to drink from “the cup of staggering.” (See Yeshayahu 51:22-23.) In this scheme, the fifth cup symbolizes the ultimate salvation of the Jewish people. The disagreement as to the symbolism of the four cups may help us understand the different opinions about the status of the fifth cup. If the four cups symbolize the downfall of Israel’s oppressors, then the cup of salvation is not similar to them. This may explain why many see the fifth cup as optional. However, if the four cups correspond to the different phrases of redemption, the fifth phrase easily fits the scheme, and thus adding a fifth cup can easily be seen as the ideal way to fulfill the mitzva. In practice, our custom is not to drink a fifth cup of wine. Some even forbid it on account of the prohibition of adding mitzvot to the Torah (bal tosif). How then do they explain the statement of Rabbi Tarfon quoted earlier? They maintain that he was referring only to someone sick or very delicate. Such a person is permitted to drink a fifth cup of wine. He would then recite Hallel HaGadol prior to drinking this additional cup.

“And Moshe said to the wicked one (rasha), ‘Why do you strike your fellow?’” (Shemot 2:13). The word translated “strike” (takeh) is technically in the future tense. From this our Sages derive that one who simply raises his hand against his neighbor is referred to as a rasha (a wicked person), even before actually striking him. The prohibition of injuring another is biblical, derived from the verse: “He may be given up to forty lashes but not more” (Devarim 25:3). As is the case for all biblical prohibitions (lavin), a transgressor is liable to malkot (lashes) for transgressing, unless he is already subject to a financial penalty. Therefore, if someone causes an injury to another and the damage done is minimal (less than a perutah), he is liable to malkot. We might therefore conclude that someone who simply raises his hand against his neighbor (causing no damage and earning himself no financial liability) should incur the punishment of lashes. Why then is such a transgressor only referred to as a rasha but not lashed? It is possible that the prooftext cited above is not the real source of the prohibition. Instead, it may be that the prohibition is rabbinic, with the biblical text simply serving as an asmachta (support). Even though according to this understanding the transgression of raising one’s hand against a neighbor is only rabbinic, someone who does so is referred to as a rasha. This status may disqualify him to serve as a witness, and may mean that his oath is not relied upon. Alternatively, it is possible that calling him a rasha does not disqualify him as a witness. It may simply mean that we are permitted to refer to him as a rasha, which is what Moshe did. There is another significance to a person being considered a rasha. The person whom he is threatening is permitted to report him to the ruling authorities, Jewish or non-Jewish, and he is not considered a moser (an informer who turns in a fellow Jew to the authorities in defiance of Jewish law). Furthermore, the person being threatened is permitted to attack his attacker – not physically (as he has not yet been struck) but verbally, by name-calling. For example, he may call the threatening person a mamzer (a child born of an adulterous or incestuous union), even though doing so may cause his attacker more harm than the attacker would have caused him had he landed his threatened blow.

When our forefather Yaakov became sick and bed-ridden (choleh she-nafal le-mishkav), he became the first such person mentioned in the Torah. What are the various laws dealing with such a choleh, and when is he exempt from certain mitzvot because of illness and its accompanying weakness? A choleh is exempt from the mitzva of living in a sukkah, as are his caretakers. This is true not only for someone who is dangerously ill, but even for someone who merely has a headache or sore eyes. (This exemption is specific to the mitzva of sukkah, and one should not extrapolate from it to other mitzvot.) A choleh is also exempt from traveling to Jerusalem for the three major festivals of Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot (aliyah le-regel). Those who can travel are obligated, while those who cannot are exempt. There are mitzvot from which a choleh is exempt because it is assumed he will not be able to summon the requisite levels of concentration, such as the mitzva of tefillin. Additionally, a person wearing tefillin must be able to control his bodily functions (guf naki). Somebody sick is likely to be unable to do so. Normally, people are required to stand out of respect for a king or prince, an elderly person, or a talmid chacham (Torah scholar). Sick people are exempt from doing so. This is either because they are understandably preoccupied with their pain, and thus cannot show the proper respect, or because when sick people stand, it is not seen as showing honor. The difference between these two reasons comes into play in a case where a sick person chooses to stand. If the reason that sick people are exempt is because they are preoccupied with their pain, one choosing to stand would indicate he has overcome this difficulty. However, if the reason is that the rising of someone in a weakened state does not show honor, then perhaps he should be asked to sit. The Talmud (Moed Katan 27b) states that if a sick person stands up for a king, we do not tell him to sit. Some understand this to mean that a sick person may stand up if he wishes. This fits with the behavior of our forefather Yaakov, who exerted himself and sat up in bed (Bereishit 47:31). However, others explain that the reason we do not tell a sick person to sit down is that it might sound as if we are saying, “Sit in your illness,” meaning “Stay sick,” which would be insulting. According to this approach, the Talmud does not permit a sick person to stand. As we said above, it is even possible that such standing does not show respect. If this is the case, why did Yaakov act as he did? A close reading of the verse indicates that Yaakov did not stand, but rather sat up in bed. Out of respect for the king he sat up, but went no further than that.

Yehudah confronted Yosef with the sharp words “For you are like Pharaoh” – who makes promises but does not keep them (Bereishit Rabbah). With this statement, Yehudah fulfilled the mandate of “You shall not pollute (tachnifu) the Land” (Bamidbar 35:33), which is a mitzva according to some. It prohibits flattering (lehachnif) a murderer on account of his good points, his power, or his family connections. In our case, since Yosef had the power to execute a person at will, similar to that of Pharaoh, Yehudah was justified in relating to him as a murderer. Therefore, he spoke to him harshly rather than flattering him. We are admonished to avoid flattering people falsely, whether in their presence or not, and even when they act properly in general. A story recorded in the Talmud makes this point. Agrippas was the King of Judea, but his lineage was questionable. When he publicly read from the Torah on Sukkot, he cried when reaching the words, “Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not your brother” (Devarim 17:15). In response, the sages flattered him and said, “Do not fear, for you are our brother” (Sotah 41a). Because of this lie, they were punished. No one is permitted to flatter with lies. Others may rely on what was said, and this can cause great harm. Nevertheless, if it is a question of saving lives (piku’ach nefesh) or preserving the peace (darkei shalom), false flattery is permissible.

“About three months later, Yehudah was told: ‘Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot’” (Bereishit 38:24). Based on this, we can conclude that a woman’s pregnancy becomes noticeable after three months. Therefore, a woman must wait three months after being divorced or widowed before she can remarry. This is to ensure that if she becomes pregnant, we can be certain of who the father is. Usually, the waiting period does not pose a difficulty for the woman. It can actually be quite positive, as it allows for a needed break between two chapters in her life, a sort of “time out.” However, there are some cases where this requirement is problematic, such as the following case. The law of a three-month separation and waiting period applies to a woman who converts to Judaism. This is so it will be clear whether she conceived before or after her conversion. A minority opinion disagrees and maintains that the separation and waiting period does not apply to a woman converting to Judaism. The logic behind this is that once she decides to convert, she will make sure to avoid getting pregnant before her conversion, and therefore she is permitted to marry immediately. Now, let us say that there is a non-Jewish couple who have both decided to convert. Would they be required to separate for three months? The minority opinion agrees that they are required to separate. This is because the logic above applies only to a situation in which a woman is converting alone. In contrast, in the case of a couple converting together, one might argue that since they are used to living together and will continue to do so after they convert, she will not view the conversion as a major turning point in the same way the single convert will (and thus will not resolve to avoid pregnancy before conversion). Thus, she is required to wait three months after her conversion before returning to live with her husband.

In his book Krayti Uflayti (65:16), Rav Yonatan Eibeschitz tells a story of a renowned and learned butcher an expert at nikur, removing the sciatic nerve as required by the halacha. This butcher announced one day that the nerve customarily removed was the wrong one. Rav Yonatan comments, “I investigated the matter thoroughly and found that the nerve which he claimed was the correct one is found only in male animals and not females. I then showed him the Smag (Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol), who writes that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to both male and female.” Rav Yonatan’s conclusion, however, is perplexing. For it is clear from the final line of the Smag that it is referring to the obligation of people – both male and female – to follow this law. It is not discussing the gender of the animals at all! Various possibilities have been offered to resolve this difficulty. One approach posits that Rav Yonatan meant the Behag (Ba’al Halachot Gedolot), not the Smag. In fact, the Behag does write that the sciatic nerve is present in both males and females. Another approach points to one of the early copies of the Krayti Uflayti, which was printed during the lifetime of Rav Eibeschitz, and in which there is a correction in his handwriting. It replaces the letters samech mem gimmel (an acronym for Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol) with the letters samech hey nun, which is an acronym for seder hanikur (the procedure for nikur). In fact, when the Tur describes the procedure for nikur (Yoreh Deah 65), he mentions removing the sciatic nerve in both males and females. An objection, however, has been raised to both of these approaches. When the Behag and the Tur mention males and females, it is possible that they are referring to nicknames for different nerves (along the lines of today’s male and female electrical connectors), rather than to the gender of the animals themselves. A different refutation of the butcher can be found in Rashi (Chullin 90a, s.v. hane’echalin). He mentions that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to a sin offering (korban chatat); we know that only female animals may be used for sin offerings. This is not a conclusive proof, though, as it is possible that Rashi is referring to a communal sin offering (chatat ha-tzibbur). This offering is always of a male animal. Thus the question as to whether the butcher’s claim could have been correct remains an open one.

The Torah forbids a man from marrying his wife’s sister as long as his wife is alive: “You shall not take a woman in addition to her sister, to make them rivals, to uncover the nakedness of one upon the other in her lifetime” (Vayikra 18:18). It seems that the Torah wants to make sure that sisters, who naturally love each other, do not come to see each other as enemies. However, if a wife dies, the Torah allows and even encourages the marriage of the surviving sister and the widower. This is because we can assume that in a household which lost its homemaker, the person most likely to be able to maintain a similar home environment would be the sister of the departed wife. One of the seven Noachide laws is a ban on sexual immorality. Is marrying two sisters included in this prohibition? Some say that it is. When the Torah speaks of marrying two sisters, it uses the word “tikach” (take). This is the same verb used later in the Torah to refer to the mitzva of taking a wife. Thus they argue that the prohibition relates specifically to Jewish marriage (kiddushin), rather than to sexual relations. Kiddushin is a halachic framework relevant only to Jews but not to Noachides (non-Jews). Indeed, Ramban (in his commentary on Yevamot 97a) and many other Rishonim (medieval rabbis) see this as the reason that Yaakov was permitted to marry two sisters. Since the Torah had not yet been given, he was considered a Noachide. However, others disagree. They point to the verse that introduces all the forbidden sexual relationships, “Any man shall not approach his close relative to uncover nakedness” (Vayikra 18:6). The verse is inclusive, with “any man” including non-Jews as well. Those who follow this opinion need a different explanation for how Yaakov was allowed to marry two sisters. One possibility, suggested by Ramban in his Torah commentary, is that as long as Yaakov lived outside the Land of Israel, he was not subject to the commandments, and, therefore, was permitted to marry two sisters.

A special blessing is associated with dew (tal) and not with rainfall (matar). When Yitzchak blessed his son Yaakov, he said, “May G-d give you of the dew of the heavens” (Bereishit 27:28). The blessing did not mention the rain of the heavens, because rain sometimes makes people unhappy. In contrast, everybody is happy with dew. Furthermore, dew appears all year long, without fail. Perhaps because it is ever-present, many do not mention it in the second blessing of the Amidah (as a parallel to the mention of rain, “mashiv haru’ach”). Others do mention dew during the summer months, inserting “morid ha-tal” in the second blessing. Nevertheless, everyone includes dew in a later blessing in the Amidah, when we petition G-d: “ve-ten tal u-matar li-verachah.” The need to specify that we want dew and rain for blessing (li-verachah) may be because dew is not always a blessing. For example, if a person places fruit on his roof to dry them out and get rid of any insects inside them, he does not want dew to wet the fruit. Though dew is one of the seven liquids that normally make fruit susceptible to defilement (mekabel tum’ah), nevertheless since the person who placed the fruit on the roof does not want dew to form on his fruit, they do not become susceptible. The laws pertaining to dew and water are the same in almost all ways (including causing susceptibility to defilement). Nevertheless, dew is considered a liquid in its own right. Thus in the list of seven liquids that make crops susceptible to defilement (wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water with the Hebrew mnemonic “yad shachat dam”), water and dew are listed separately. This is because there are some differences between the two. For example, the amount of water a person would need to transport in order to be liable for carrying on Shabbat is different from the amount of dew that would make him liable.

When a person loses a close relative (for whom he is required to mourn) and the relative has not yet been buried, the mourner is called an onen. An onen is exempt from performing positive commandments (mitzvot aseh) such as praying, putting on tefillin, and reciting Keriat Shema. However, he may not transgress any negative commandments (mitzvot lo ta’aseh). Acharonim disagree as to his status when it comes to commandments that have both a positive and a negative component. For example, is an onen exempt from destroying his chametz before Pesach? On the one hand, this is a mitzva which requires taking positive action. On the other hand, destroying the chametz is also done to make sure that one will not transgress the negative prohibition of owning chametz (commonly referred to as bal yera’eh u-bal yimatzei). An additional question pertains to an onen as well. May an onen choose to be stringent and fulfill the positive commandments from which he is exempt? The answers to these questions depend upon the reason an onen is exempt from performing these. If the exemption is meant to give honor to the deceased and show that nothing else is important to the mourner at this point, then even if he wishes to perform these mitzvot he would not be permitted to do so. However, if the reason for the exemption is to enable the mourner to take care of the burial, then if he is able to arrange for someone else to take care of it (such as the local chevra kadisha), he would be permitted to perform these mitzvot. Alternatively, if the exemption is based on the principle that one who is already involved in performing one mitzva is exempt from performing another one (ha-osek be-mitzva patur min ha-mitzva), then if the mourner feels able to perform both mitzvot, he would be allowed to do so. In Parshat Chayei Sarah, Avraham was an onen before Sarah was buried. Yet not only did he acquire a grave for her, he also purchased the field where the cave was situated, thus fulfilling the mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (Settling the Land of Israel). Perhaps we may conclude that just as Avraham involved himself in additional mitzvot even while he was an onen, so too any onen who wishes may choose to perform the positive commandments from which he is exempt.

The Ba’al Halachot Gedolot considers the mitzva of Bikur Cholim to be of biblical origin. He derives it from Devarim 13:5, “Follow the Lord Your G-d,” which the Gemara explains to mean that we should follow in the ways of G-d. G-d visited Avraham when he was sick, so we too must visit the sick. The mitzva of Bikur Cholim is different from other acts of chessed (kindness). According to the Sages, a person who visits someone sick takes part of the illness away with him, thus endangering himself. The goal of Bikur Cholim is to take care of anything the patient needs and to pray for his wellbeing. Payment is not taken for visiting the sick. Obviously, a visitor should not be a burden to the patient. Therefore, when someone visits the sick, the patient’s needs must always be primary and should determine when a visitor arrives and how long he stays for. For example, a visitor should be careful not to sit on the sick person’s bed. Furthermore, if the visitor and the patient don’t get along and the sick person may feel the visitor has come to gloat, a visit might be inappropriate. When someone has a sick person to visit and a mourner to console, which mitzva should he do first? Bikur Cholim should take precedence. Since a visitor has the potential to improve a patient’s health, sooner is better than later.

Not all mitzvot are followed by a festive meal, but this is the custom when celebrating a circumcision (brit milah). In fact, the Shibolei HaLeket considers the meal at a brit obligatory. However, at this festive meal (seudat mitzva), we do not recite the blessing of SheHaSimcha BiMe’ono (joy is in His dwelling) as we do at a sheva berachot. Since the baby is in pain, it would be insensitive to say these words. This leads to the question: why at a brit do we have a festive meal at all? Several reasons are suggested. One is that of Tosafot (Shabbat 130a), citing Bereishit 21:8. There we read that Avraham made a party “on the day that Yitzchak was weaned” (beyom higamel et Yitzchak). Though the verse does not seem to be referring to circumcision, some creative wordplay can help make the connection. The first letter of the word higamel is the letter hey, whose numerical value is 5. Add to that the numerical value of the second letter, gimmel, and we have an additional 3. The last two letters of higamel form the word mal, “circumcise.” Thus the word higamel can be interpreted to mean “on the eighth (5+3) day, circumcise (mal).” Following this exegesis, the verse means that Avraham made a party on the day of Yitzchak’s circumcision. Rashi points to another source to show that milah is a joyful occasion. We read in Tehillim 119:162, “I rejoice over Your instruction like one who finds abundant spoils.” What specific instruction is being rejoiced over? The very first “instruction” given to our forefather Avraham, i.e., milah. The Abudraham quotes a different verse from Tehillim (50:5): “Gather My devout ones unto Me, sealers of My covenant (kortei briti) through sacrifice (alei zavach).” The word briti clearly hints at brit milah, while the word zevach can be understood homiletically as “flowing (zav) on the eighth,” another hint at milah. (The final letter of zevach is the letter chet, which has a numerical value of 8.) Some say that a person who is invited to a brit and does not attend is rejected by heaven. Therefore, common practice is simply to inform family and friends of when and where a brit will take place, and not to issue personal invitations.