Is there a mitzvah to stand for an elderly woman or a woman who is a חכמה בתורה?

Question: Is there a mitzvah to stand for a woman who is aחכמה בתורה  or elderly just as there is a mitzah to stand for a Rabbi who is a Talmid Chacham or elderly? Similarly, is there a special mitzvah for a girl to give kavod to her Morah? Is it permitted for her to call her Morah by her first name?

Answer: It would seem that we can deduce from the Talmud that there is an obligation to stand up for an אשה חכמה בתורה based on the passage in Mesechet Shavuot (30b) where Rav Nachman stood up in respect for the wife of Rav Huna since אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר , the wife of a talmid chacham is treaded like a talmid chacham herself. The Rishonim on this passage explain that this obligation to stand for a talmid chacham is Biblical in nature. One might argue that the same obligation should exist when the woman is a talmid chachama in her own right. However, one might also distinguish and say that the obligation to stand for the wife of a talmid chacham is due to the respect required for the husband who is a talmid chacham and we say אשתו כגופו, the wife is treated as a partner of her husband. Rav Ovadia says it would seem clear from Maran Beit Yosef in Shulchan Aruch that there is no independent mitzvah to stand for the wife of the talmid chacham, but rather it is only as she is an extension of him and part of respecting him. In fact, he rules that one only stands for her while the husband is alive, but after his death one would not be obligated to do so.

However, the Sefer Chasidim argues that the obligation to stand for an אשה חכמה בתורה stems from another source, the obligation to stand for the elderly. The pasuk says מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן, and he says this applies not only to an elderly man, but even to an elderly woman. Thus just as you must stand for an elderly woman, you have to show the same respect for an אשה חכמה בתורה. Rav Ovadia quotes poskim who say this obligation begins when a woman is seventy years old. Whereas the obligation to stand for the wife of a talmid chacham stems from the need to give respect to her husband, the obligation to stand for a elderly woman comes from the need to show her respect in her own right. Similarly, an אשה חכמה בתורה deserves to be show kavod as well.

While Rav Ovadia quotes the Ben Ishe Chai who argues with the above, he quotes a litany of other poskim who agree that there is an obligation to stand and show proper respect to an אשה חכמה בתורה. If this were even to be a halchic doubt, a safek, Rav Ovadia concludes we would say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא, that a doubt in a Biblical law must move us to be strict.

Rav Ovadia further states that there is definitely an obligation to stand for your Morah who teaches you Torah. This is because the source for a standing for your Rabbi is that his teaching you Torah is leading you to עולם הבא; the same is true when it is your Morah who is teaching you Torah. With this in mind, Rav Ovadia concludes that just as you cannot call your Rabbi by his first name, you cannot call your Morah by her first name.

Is it halachically permissible to attend a bull fight?

Question: Is it halachically permissible to attend a bull fight?

Introduction: Bull fights remain a popular sport in Spain and other Spanish countries. While we may not always visit places that have bull fighting, I think the conclusions Rav Ovadia draws from the halacha can be applicable to other situations of animal sporting.

Answer: It is clear that bull fighting is against our holy Torah and only cruel people participate in such games. The famous statement from the Talmud (Yevamot 79a) says that the Jewish People have three main character traits – we are ביישנים, רחמנים, וגומלי חסדים – shamefaced with fear of G-d, merciful and perform acts of kindness. So on one level, bull fighting would certainly seem to go against our merciful nature.

Additionally, there is prohibition of צער בעלי חיים, causing pain to animals, which Rav Ovadia says of a biblical nature. This halacha actually shows us how far we need to go to be sensitive to the pain of animals, not even considering the possibility of inflicting pain on them for our own leisure.

a)     For example, if we see our donkey is struggling to carry its load, we are obligated to lighten the load for it.

b)    The Talmud in Shabbat (128b) actually has a scenario where it is permissible on Shabbat to violate a rabbinic prohibition to avoid צער בעלי חיים which is biblical. Rav Ovaida comments that we do not find such leniency on Shabbat to allow you to do other mitzvot, thus it shows how sensitive we have to be to animals and not to cause them pain.

c)     The Talmud in Barchot (40a) also tells us that it is prohibited to eat your meal before feeding your animals. This is based on the pasuk ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהתך and only after you do that ואכלת ושבעת.

d)    The Talmud in Bava Metzia (85a) says that you should even go out of your way to be merciful on small bugs.

Rav Ovadia then quotes the sefer Ohr Hachaim who writes that it is only permitted to kill animals through shechita that we are allowed to eat. It is prohibited to kill other animals that are not kosher. The Nodah Beyehuda was asked about going hunting for pleasure and reaches the same conclusion that it is prohibited as an act of צער בעלי חיים. Rav Ovadia proceeds to quote other poskim who concur with these conclusions.

Rav Ovadia takes this position one step further and says if one were to pay money to attend a bull fight he would be considered a מסייע, one who is aiding in the sinful act.

Conclusion: It seems clear that attending a bull fight is prohibited.

If you have multiple shuls in your neighborhood, are you permitted to walk passed one of them to pray in a further shul, or is that a problem of אין מעבירין על המצוות, “don’t pass over a mitzvah”?

Question: If you have multiple shuls in your neighborhood, are you permitted to walk passed one of them to pray in a further shul, or is that a problem of אין מעבירין על המצוות, “don’t pass over a mitzvah”?

Answer:

The Talmud (Sotah 22a) recounts a story of a widow who despite living near one shul, would go each day to pray in the Beit Medrash of Rebbi Yochanan. He asked her why she would go through all the trouble to travel further and not pray in the shul close to her home? She responded that she assumed she would get שכר פסיעות, extra reward for traveling further to perform the mitzvah of tefilla. Base on this episode, the Magen Avraham rules that it is actually preferable and a mitzvah to travel to the further shul to get this reward for extra travel. Rav Ovadia quotes a number of other poskim who agree with this approach. It would seem that this group of poskim are not concerned with the issue of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

The Talmud (Yoma 70a) says that one who sees the Kohen Gadol reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, and vice vera. However, the Talmud explains that this is just a practical incapability as they are both performed at the exact same time. But it would not be a violation of אין מעבירין על המצוות since you are not actually an active participant in one mitzvah so it would not be considered passing over the mitzvah. Rav Ovadia suggests the same is true when passing one shul to go to another; since you are not actively engaged in tefilla at the first shul, passing it is not a violation of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

Rav Ovadia suggests that if the shul closer to you does not have a minyan, then you would have to pray there so that the entire minyan is not undone.

Rav Moshe Pardo suggests another reason why there is no concern of אין מעבירין על המצוות in our situation. Although tefilla is a daily obligation, praying in a minyan is not an absolute obligation. Therefore, אין מעבירין על המצוות would not be applicable to this mitzvah at all.

The שו׳׳ת ישכיל עבדי concurs that there is no issue here and he concludes that it is well known in the old city of Yerushalayim that there are numerous shuls on the same block and people pass one to go to another. Clearly there is no issue of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

However, Rav Shimon Greenfield takes issue with the Magen Avraham and claims there is no שכר פסיעות, reward for extra travel here. He says that would only apply if the further shul has more congregants so the concept of ברוב עם הדרת מלך would apply (there is more glory for Hashem when we are in the multitudes), or if they learn Torah in that Shul. Rav Ovadia says this is not the opinion we follow.

Rav Ovadia mentions other considerations that would allow you to pray in the shul that is further from your home:

1.      One has an established מקום קבוע in his shul and, therefore, he need not forgo that to pray in the closer shul.

2.     If you are choosing the other shul because the Chazan is a bigger יראי שמים then that is ok as well.

Summary: It is permissible to travel to a shul further from your home and one need not be concerned with אין מעבירין על המצוות.