Rav Itzele Peterberger
Rabbi Kaganoff
Halachic Writings of Rav Itzele Peterberger
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff
Question #1: When and where to daven?
If all the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman keri’as Shema, is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis bi’yechidus before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?
Question #2: Lending without proof
May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?
Question #3: Acceptable resentment (Tar’omes)
At times, the Gemara states that I can be upset at someone for what they did to me. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentment I may have?
Question #4: Shocheit
My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?
Foreword:
The eleventh of Av is the yahrzeit of one of the greatest of the ba’alei musar, Rav Yitzchak Blaser, commonly called Rav Itzele Peterberger. Aside from being a highly respected talmid chacham, as evidenced from his halachic writings, he is considered the most prominent of the disciples of Rav Yisrael Salanter and is the source of most of the writings attributed to Rav Yisrael. Rav Itzele wrote several works, Ohr Yisrael, Kochavei Ohr and Nesivos Ohr, which he states are completely quotations of what he learned from Rav Yisrael.
Aside from many articles that Rav Itzele published in various rabbinic journals, his primary published work is called Pri Yitzchak. At the time he published the first volume of this work, he had no children, and he was the only surviving descendant of his father. Rav Itzele had two brothers, both of them prominent talmidei chachamim and rabbonim. Unfortunately, both of them passed away as young men and without progeny.
When Rav Itzele turned 50, his rebbitzen insisted that they get divorced so that he might be able to have children from a different wife. He refused her entreaties, until she took him to a din Torah to force him to divorce her. After their divorce and his subsequent remarriage, he continued to support her financially, the true ba’al musar that he was.
From Rav Itzele’s second marriage, he had a son and three daughters.
I have a personal reason to write about Rav Itzele. His first rebbitzen, this unbelievably altruistic woman, was a sister of my great-grandfather, which makes Rav Itzele my great-great-uncle – and makes me the closest his first rebbitzen had to descendants.
Rav Itzele Peterberger was born in Vilna in 1837; he studied under Rav Yisrael Salanter in Kovno. While yet in his 20’s, Rav Itzele reluctantly agreed to become the rav of St. Petersburg (at different times in history also known as Leningrad and Petrograd), then the capital of the Czar’s Russian Empire. Of course, being the rav of the capital city was a position both of great prestige and greater responsibility, and his position enabled him to assist many Jews living under the Czar. At this time, perhaps the majority of world Jewry lived under the thumb of the viciously anti-Semitic Czar’s regime.
Because of this position, he was called Rav Itzele Peterberger.
Rav Itzele held the position for sixteen years, and he then returned to Kovno, where he was the head of the famed Kovno Kollel. He was also involved in the creation of both Slabodka yeshivos, Kenesses Yitzchak and Kenesses Beis Yisrael, and the yeshiva in Kelm, called the “Talmud Torah”. (At this time, Slabodka was a suburb of Kovno, the two cities located on opposite sides of the Neiman River, now called the Nemunas. Slabodka is now incorporated within the city of Kovno, currently called Kaunus.)
In his late 60’s, Rav Itzele left Europe and moved to Eretz Yisrael, where he lived out his last years in Yerushalayim. He passed away in 1907.
Since this is a halachic column and not a presentation of biographies of gedolim, the rest of this article will focus on various points in halacha that Rav Itzele wrote about in his seforim, Pri Yitzchak and Nesivos Ohr. As mentioned, the latter was written by Rav Itzele as the opinions and thoughts of Rav Yisrael Salanter.
When to daven?
The first question with which I opened our article is: “All the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman kerias Shema. Is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema before davening and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis by myself before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?”
The very first responsum that Rav Itzele wrote in Pri Yitzchak is devoted to this topic. In his lengthy teshuvah, he analyzes passages in the Gemara, rishonim and early acharonim on the topic. First, he quotes the various opinions regarding how much of kerias Shema is required for one to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah. He notes that some authorities require that we say only the first pasuk; others require reciting the first paragraph; still others contend that the mitzvah min haTorah requires that we say all three paragraphs, including parshas tzitzis. However, Rav Itzele contends that this dispute among halachic authorities should not affect what we do. Regardless of how much of Shema must be recited to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah, the rabbinic mitzvah requires that we recite all three paragraphs of Shema before sof zman kerias Shema.
Based on his analysis, Rav Itzele concludes that if a minyan will daven after zman kerias Shema, the individual should daven bi’yechidus before the tzibur does. He rules that one should recite Shema with its berachos in the correct time rather than reciting Shema earlier and then davening after zman kerias Shema. His reason is that Chazal wanted us to fulfill mitzvas kerias Shema while reciting Shema with its berachos, notwithstanding that the berachos that surround the Shema are not categorized as birchos hamitzvah, berachos recited immediately before fulfilling a mitzvah. Whether these berachos are categorized as birchos hamitzvah or not is the topic of a dispute among the rishonim, with most rishonim contending that they are not birchos hamitzvah. Many proofs can be rallied to this approach, among them the fact that these berachos are not structured like birchos hamitzvah. If they were, their text would be Baruch Attah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha’olam asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al kerias Shema.
Notwithstanding his conclusion that birchas kerias Shema are not birchos hamitzvah, Rav Itzele still maintains that Chazal intended that we fulfill mitzvas Shema while we recite the birchos kerias Shema, and that reciting Shema before davening should be done only when one is uncertain whether the tzibur will miss the zman of kerias Shema. He notes that his position appears to disagree with the majority of later halachic authorities on the subject, yet he is absolutely convinced that this is the correct halachic position. (By the way, there is evidence that the Vilna Gaon and his disciples also held this way.)
Lending without proof
At this point, let us analyze the second of our opening questions: “May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?”
The Gemara (Bava Metzia 75b) teaches that it is forbidden to lend money without proof that can be used afterward to demonstrate that the loan took place. Its actual words are: “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Whoever has money and lends it out without witnesses violates the prohibition of lifnei iveir lo sitein michshol, ‘you may not place a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Reish Lakish said: He brings a curse upon himself.”
The Gemara understands that the prohibition of lifnei iveir includes causing someone else to violate a mitzvah of the Torah. In this instance, as Rashi explains, the concern is that, with time, the borrower will realize that the lender has no proof that a loan was ever taken out, and that if he, the borrower, denies having borrowed the money, he can avoid paying it back.
Although the ruling of this Gemara is recorded in all the standard halachic authorities, including the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and all its commentators, widespread practice was that people ignored this passage of Gemara and loaned money without any proof. Examples of appropriate proof that a loan transpired include lending the money with witnesses present or having the borrower sign an IOU note. Another way to avoid the problem of lifnei iveir is to require the borrower to provide collateral such that if the borrower defaults or denies the loan, the lender simply sells the collateral as payment.
When people lend money without proof, although they are performing a great mitzvah of lending money, they are transgressing a dictate of the Gemara while doing so. Several authorities attempt to explain why the Gemara’s prohibition does not apply.
Rav Itzele shares some approaches of the Acharonim that attempt to justify the practice, but demonstrates why he is dissatisfied with their rationales. He then presents his own approach to explain why people’s actions were justified. I have chosen not to explain in this article the finer erudite reasons that he presents in this venue; suffice it to say, his conclusion is that one should not lend money without proof, as the Gemara states. However, he created what is called a limud zechus, a reason to explain why people do what they do, notwithstanding that one should not rely on this heter.
Question #3
The third of our opening questions is different from the previous two, in that its source is from Nesivos Ohr, one of the works that Rav Itzele states are quotations of lessons he learned directly from Rav Yisrael Salanter. Thus, this halachic discussion is not only from Rav Itzele, but from Rav Yisrael himself!
Tar’omes
According to halacha, wronging someone financially does not always mean that the aggrieved party is entitled to financial compensation. There are situations that are categorized as grama, indirect damage, that are ruled chayov bedinei shamayim yet beis din cannot demand payment. In these instances, the damager should pay or the heavenly tribunals will punish him for not having paid. However, should the aggriever refuse to pay, the aggrieved party has no halachic recourse whereby he can force collection.
Complaints, complaints
There are also situations in which Chazal rule that an aggrieved party may have tar’omes, a complaint that someone dealt with him unethically, although he has no claim to compensation for damages. Several examples appear in Chazal where this is the ruling. Here is one:
An employer engaged a foreman to hire daily workers for whom he was willing to pay forty dollars per diem. For whatever reason, the foreman hired the workers for only thirty dollars; they were willing to be hired for the lower amount and did not know that the employer was willing to pay them more. The workers now discover that, had they known, they could have earned more daily bread for their work. Do they have any financial claim against either the employer or the foreman?
The answer is that they do not. Since they agreed to the price quoted by the foreman, who was the party with whom they negotiated, they have no financial claim against either the employer or the foreman. However, the Gemara states that they have a non-financial grievance against the foreman, which is called a tar’omes. This is one instance in which the Gemara refers to someone as having a claim that is not financial but he can be upset at the person who caused him loss. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentment I am permitted to have?
Rav Itzele quotes Rav Yisrael Salanter as noting that there is a legal claim called tar’omes. This means that the employees cannot sue the foreman for money, but they have a halachic right to be upset at him should he not apologize to them or make amends in a way that satisfies them. If they reach an agreement with him and/or they forgive (mocheil) him, even without his having made any amends, they can no longer have any tar’omes against him. After all, they were mocheil him for any claims they may have.
Problematic shocheit
At this point, let us discuss the fourth of our opening questions: “My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?”
There are several other fascinating halachic issues discussed by Rav Itzele in the second volume of Pri Yitzchak, which was published posthumously by one of his sons-in-law, Rav Chizkiyahu Mishkovski, in 1913. One teshuvah (Pri Yitzchak II #22) involves a shocheit regarding whom concerns have been raised about his knowledge of the laws of shechitah and bedikah, the checking for tereifos. He appears to be an observant Jew, and he has a kabbalah on shechitah, the halachic equivalent of a shocheit’s license.
(The fact that such a shocheit had a kabbalah is astonishing, since it usually requires that a recognized, respected shocheit test him on his skills, oversee him perform shechitah successfully several times and check that his shechitah was kosher. In addition, kabbalah requires that a rav tested him on his knowledge of the laws of shechitah, on his ability to check a shechitah knife properly and to repair a nick on a shechitah knife in a nick of time. The assumption is that if he is not skilled enough to repair his knife quickly under the pressure of having a rav watch his work, he will be unable to sharpen his knife properly and quickly while working as a shocheit, if it will become necessary to do so. To receive kabbalah as a shocheit ubodeik, which is what is required for virtually all such positions, he also needs to pass testing on his abilities both as a bodeik penim, who checks whether the animal is a tereifah while the lungs are still bifnim, “inside” the animal, and as a bodeik chutz, who checks them after they have been removed.)
As a true ba’al musar, Rav Itzele is concerned about destroying the reputation and livelihood of this “shocheit,” but, of course, neither can the kashrus rules be violated one iota.
Rav Itzele rules that he may not work as a shocheit without full supervision; however, Rav Itzele does not exclude him from ever being a shocheit. Rav Itzele rules that this “shocheit” must learn all the laws and skills of a shocheit and undergo testing until he demonstrates that he has mastered the skills and knowledge required. He also insists that the “shocheit” accept that he is not competent to rule on the laws of shechitah, but must refer any question to a competent rav.
Non-kosher fish in your meat!
Here is another responsum from Rav Itzele Peterberger (Pri Yitzchak II #25). A piece of non-kosher fish fell into a pot of kosher meat. Obviously, if the quantity of kosher food is less than sixty times the volume of the non-kosher fish, the pot and its contents are all non-kosher – the food can be sold to a non-Jew or disposed of and the pot requires kashering. But what is the halacha if there is sixty or more times the kosher food relative to the amount of non-kosher fish?
There is a major dispute among halachic authorities regarding whether the practice of not eating fish and meat together applies when the fish is less than one-sixtieth of the food. The Rema (in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh Deah Chapter 116) and the Taz (Yoreh Deah 116:2) prohibit the food, whereas the Mordechai and the Shach (in Nekudos Hakesef ad loc.) permit it. Rav Itzele cites Talmudic sources whereby he demonstrates that non-kosher fish is certainly nullified one part in 60; the dispute among the earlier authorities can only be regarding small amounts of kosher fish that became mixed into meat.
Conclusion
We know most of the details of what Rav Yisrael Salanter bequeathed to us only from the writings of his talmidim, and the foremost writer among his disciples was Rav Itzele Peterberger. Thus, much of the invaluable lessons that have been handed down to us from Rav Yisrael Salanter, the unbelievable gadol, the founder of the musar movement, is known from my great-great-uncle. It certainly behooves us to study the Torah of this great leader, even if we are not his great-great-nephews.