The Maharsham Project

THE THIEF WHO PAID IT BACK- Maharsham Project #12

2026-06-11T21:42:33-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue No. 12 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek III, Siman 190

THE THIEF WHO PAID IT BACK

A robber returns every penny. Is he now a trustworthy witness, or does the Torah demand something more?

📄 DOWNLOAD THIS WEEK'S ISSUE (PDF)

THE CASE

A man steals. Later, whether from regret, fear, or pressure, he gives back every cent. The person he robbed has been repaid, and by any ordinary measure the matter is closed. Yet the Rambam rules that this man still may not serve as a witness, not until he has done teshuvah. If the money is back in the victim's hands, what more does the Torah ask of him? The question puzzled the Tur and the commentators who followed.

A sharp talmid chacham from Wieliczka offered an answer from the Gemara in Bava Kamma: a man who strikes another and then pays the damages is still called a rasha, because the act itself leaves a stain that money cannot wash away. Perhaps theft is the same. He brought the question to the Maharsham.

WHAT'S INSIDE

A good idea, but not a new one. The Maharsham agrees the reasoning from Bava Kamma is sound, then shows it was already cited by earlier authorities.

The answer within the Rambam. The Rambam explains his own ruling. In Hilchos Teshuvah he derives the law from a verse in Parshas Naso, with the Sifrei Zuta making it explicit: sins bein adam l'chaveiro require vidui and teshuvah in addition to restitution.

A distinction that does not exist. Whether the thief hands back the stolen object or pays its value, the Torah still requires an independent act of teshuvah.

The p'sak. Returning the money discharges the financial obligation. It does not discharge the spiritual one. Until the thief demonstrates genuine repentance, he remains unfit to testify.

✶ ✶ ✶

The Tur and the commentators labored over a question the Rambam had already answered, in a different corner of his own code. The Maharsham's message is gentle and exact: before you call a Rambam difficult, make sure you have read the whole Rambam.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

Gut Shabbos!

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

THE LAYERED GARMENT | Issue #11. The Maharsham Project

2026-06-05T08:42:51-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue No. 11 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek III, Siman 292

Dedicated le'iluy nishmas

Rebbe Issamar of Nadvorna, zi"a

ben Rebbe Meir of Kretchnif, zi"a

Yahrtzeit 22 Sivan

THE LAYERED GARMENT

A man wears wool pants over linen pants. Two separate garments, worn together. Is that sha'atnez?

📄 DOWNLOAD THIS WEEK'S ISSUE (PDF)

THE CASE

A person puts on a pair of linen pants. Over them, he pulls on a second pair made of wool. Two separate garments, each perfectly kosher on its own. But now they are layered, one directly on top of the other. Is this sha'atnez?

The same question arises with upper body garments. A man wears a linen shirt and then pulls a wool undershirt over it. Two garments, two materials, no stitching between them. But wool is resting on linen.

WHAT'S INSIDE

Why shirts are different from leg coverings. The Shulchan Aruch permits layering shirts, but the Or Zarua prohibits layering certain leg coverings. The Maharsham explains the crucial distinction.

It all depends on the knot. The Maharsham identifies the precise factor: if the outer garment is fastened with a lasting knot, the two garments are joined. If it can be pulled off freely, there is no sha'atnez.

Three independent proofs. The Yerushalmi, the Shulchan Aruch, and the halachos of Shabbos all confirm the same principle. Layering does not create a halachic connection.

The p'sak. Ordinary layered garments that can be removed without untying a knot do not create sha'atnez. The prohibition applies only when wool and linen are joined into one garment, or into one halachic unit.

✶ ✶ ✶

The Maharsham does not simply rule permitted or forbidden. He identifies the precise factor, the knot, that determines the outcome, and then tests it against multiple sources. Each source independently confirms the same principle. His ruling gave more than an answer to one case: it gave a test for all similar cases.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

Gut Shabbos!

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

THE BORROWED RING - Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

2026-05-28T07:24:29-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue No. 10 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek I, Siman 29

Dedicated le'iluy nishmas

Mrs. Rivky Glick, a"h

Yahrtzeit 15 Sivan

THE BORROWED RING

When a chassan stands under the chuppah with a ring that isn't really his, does the marriage hold?

📄 DOWNLOAD THIS WEEK'S ISSUE (PDF)

THE CASE

A chassan in the town of Tolmitch did not have a ring for his wedding. A married woman lent him hers as a matanah al menas l'hachzir, a gift on condition of return. The chassan placed the ring on the kallah's finger under the chuppah, the brachos were recited, and the couple began married life.

Then someone raised the alarm. The ring belonged to a married woman who had lent it without her husband's knowledge. And the foundational rule of kiddushin is that the chassan must give the kallah something of value that belongs to him. A serious question arose as to whether the kiddushin had taken effect at all.

WHAT'S INSIDE

Can we assume the husband doesn't mind? The Maharsham examines the principle of nicha lei and shows where it applies and where it falls short.

The woman who runs the household. When a wife actively manages the home's financial affairs, her authority over household property is considerably broader. The Maharsham finds here the legal linchpin of his ruling.

Can their married life validate the kiddushin? The Maharsham corrects his son's reasoning: living together only helps if there was conscious intent to create new kiddushin.

The p'sak. The marriage stands. But more than that: the Maharsham warns that casting doubt on the original kiddushin would itself cause harm to the family.

A father writing to his son. This teshuvah is addressed to the Maharsham's own son, Rabbi Yitzchak HaKohen of Bohorodyczyn. One sees a father guiding his son in the derech of psak, shoulder to shoulder.

✶ ✶ ✶

Halachah is exact, but a posek also has to know what his ruling will do to a family. The Maharsham does not wave away a technical problem. But he also refuses to create public suspicion when there are solid grounds to validate the kiddushin. That balance is at the heart of this teshuvah.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

Gut Shabbos!

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

Shavuos Special Issue: Five Pieces from the Maharsham

2026-05-19T01:22:35-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Shavuos Special Edition • Chag HaShavuos 5786

THE MAHARSHAM ON SHAVUOS AND MATTAN TORAH

Five pieces from the Maharsham's writings on Shavuos, the giving of the Torah, and what it means to receive it.

📄 DOWNLOAD THE SHAVUOS SPECIAL (PDF)

Dedicated le'iluy nishmas

Rebbe Pinchos of Kechnia, Hy"d

ben Rebbe Sholom, Ab"d Lanshin, zy"a

and his Rebbetzin, Shlomtza, Hy"d, bas the Rebbe Reb Meir of Kretchnif, zy"a

who were murdered al kiddush Hashem in Auschwitz on 3 Sivan

Sponsored le'iluy nishmas Chaya Roiza bas R' Yosef, a"h • Yahrtzeit 3 Sivan

WHAT'S INSIDE

I. Adorning the Shul on Shavuos. The Gr"a opposed placing trees in the shul. The Maharsham upheld the minhag with two arguments from the sources, showing how a cherished minhag Yisrael rests on firm halachic ground.

II. When to Daven on Shavuos Night. Must we wait until after tzeis hakochavim to daven Maariv? The Maharsham defines exactly where the concern of temimus applies: to Kiddush, not to Maariv.

III. Bringing Everyone to the Aseres Hadibros. If a minyan has already heard the Torah read, may another reading be made for those who missed it? The Maharsham discusses when a new Krias HaTorah with berachos may be justified.

IV. Building the Inner Mikdash. From the Techeiles Mordechai on Parshas Pekudei: the doubled phrase in Moshe's blessing points to a mikdash built not only as a structure, but within each person.

V. Stories of Kavod HaTorah. Three stories: the Maharsham's hundred-and-first time through the Tur, his refusal of wine on his deathbed, and his achrayus to explain every din Torah to the losing party.

✶ ✶ ✶

A thread runs through these pieces. The Maharsham upheld a cherished minhag Yisrael rather than abolish it; he carefully defined where the halachic concern of the Omer applies; he ruled toward bringing even one more Yid to hear the Aseres Hadibros; he taught that a central avodah of Kabbalas HaTorah is the building that happens within; and he gave his whole life, to its final hour, to a Torah he understood must reach every Yid with clarity and emes.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

Gut Yom Tov!

A freilichen Shavuos to all of Klal Yisrael.

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

This week's issue: "Who Owns the Crumbs?" Issue #8

2026-05-14T22:35:13-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue #8 • Parashas Bamidbar • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek III, Siman 291

WHO OWNS THE CRUMBS?

A father and son live under one roof but run separate households. Erev Pesach arrives, and a simple question turns complicated. Who searches for the chametz, and who makes the bracha?

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

A wealthy father and his grown son share a large property in Galicia. The son has his own rooms, his own servants, and runs what amounts to his own household.

But there is one critical overlap: the kitchen and bakery serve both households.

The night of bedikas chametz arrives. Can the son make his own bracha and search his own rooms? Or must he stand beside his father, hear the father's bracha, and search as a delegate?

The Maharsham navigates questions of ownership, acquisition, and the reach of a bracha. Along the way he proves that even a borrowed courtyard acquires for the borrower, and that an adult son on his father's table may be treated like a minor in matters of property.

His solution is elegant: a small act of transfer that resolves every doubt at once.

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In large Galician Jewish households, extended family often shared property but maintained separate living arrangements. A father and married son under one roof, with a common kitchen but separate quarters, was common enough that the question came up every Erev Pesach. The Maharsham found a practical mechanism that resolved every doubt simultaneously. The answer was already present within the system. He simply showed where it was.

Coming next week:

A robber returns every penny he stole.
Is he now a trustworthy witness, or does the Torah demand something more?

✶ ✶ ✶

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

Rabbi Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron (1835–1911) served as the Rav of Brezhan in Galicia for over 40 years. He is best known for his seven-volume Shut Maharsham, containing thousands of teshuvos on every area of halachah, and his Da’as Torah commentary on Shulchan Aruch. Regarded as one of the foremost poskim of his generation, his rulings are cited in halachic works to this day.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

A Husband Exploded. The Maharsham Had to Decide. Issue #7

2026-05-07T21:59:54-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue #7 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek I, Siman 218

A SOLDIER'S RAGE AND A WOMAN LEFT BEHIND

One angry sentence from a husband headed to the Tsar's army nearly invalidated his wife's get. Was she free, or was she trapped forever?

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

A Jewish man in Novi Minsk had been conscripted into the Tsar's army. Five years of service in a distant garrison. The marriage was already broken. If he left without giving a get, his wife would be an agunah, chained indefinitely.

On the day he was scheduled to report for duty, the local Rav pulled off what must have seemed like a miracle. He persuaded the husband to agree to a get, in exchange for money held by a shalish.

The sofer began writing. Then disaster struck.

Several of the wife's relatives walked into the room. The husband's face darkened. He flew into a rage and spat: "Because you brought these people here, I will not divorce you!"

The Rav scrambled. Got the relatives out. Calmed the husband down. The get was completed and delivered.

But was the get still valid? Or had that one angry sentence destroyed it?

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Military conscription in Tsarist Russia was one of the most devastating forces acting on Jewish family life in the 19th century. Even five years in a distant garrison, with unreliable mail and no leave, could destroy a marriage permanently. The pressure on local rabbanim to secure a get before departure was immense, because everyone understood that once the husband left, the chances of obtaining one dropped to nearly zero.

This case captures the chaos of those final hours before departure: the frantic negotiations, the money changing hands, the sofer racing to write, and then the human explosion that nearly ruined everything.

Coming next week:

A community splits apart over a pile of crumbs.
Who owns what belongs to no one?

✶ ✶ ✶

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

THE FLOOD AT SIKATIN 🌊 Maharsham Project #6

2026-05-01T04:38:08-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue #6 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek I, Siman 88

THE FLOOD AT SIKATIN

When a flood tore a Yiddishe family from their home, two women were left waiting, both facing the same terrible question: Were they widows who could begin to rebuild their lives, or were they agunos, still bound by uncertainty?

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

It was erev Rosh Chodesh Tammuz when a sudden flash flood ripped through the village of Sikatin in Galicia. In a few terrifying moments, the water swept through the family’s home and carried people away.

The mother grabbed a floating log. Non-Jews pulled her from the water. But as she was being saved, she saw her husband Avraham Yosef and her son Meir drifting away in the rushing floodwaters רהל.

The father’s body was found the next morning. His face was intact. His son Moshe recognized him right away.

But another son, Meir, was still missing. Days later, a battered body turned up downstream, among other drowning victims near the Dniester. Meir’s wife sent her father to check for identifying marks: a scarred thumb, protruding teeth, a distinctive skin marking.

The marks matched.

Now two women waited in a painful holding pattern.

And the Maharsham had to decide: Was the evidence strong enough to free them?

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Yidden of Galicia lived close to nature’s dangers. The same rivers that powered their mills could destroy their homes in a single night. A flash flood in the Carpathian foothills didn’t give warnings.

And when tragedy struck, halachah had to respond. Not for theoretical cases, not for names in a sefer — but for real women standing in front of a real rav, asking whether they were free to move on with their lives or whether they would remain chained to uncertainty forever.

Coming next week:

A husband bound for five years of military service nearly destroys his wife’s only chance at freedom with a single sentence.

✶ ✶ ✶

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

Correction: The teshuvah in Issue #5, “The Shochet and the Seventh Goose,” is located in Chelek III, Siman 189. The previous issue had incorrectly said Chelek I instead of Chelek III.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

The Maharsham Project • www.kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

THE SHOCHET AND THE SEVENTH GOOSE 🦆🦆🦆 Maharsham Project #5

2026-04-24T01:02:07-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue 005 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek I, Siman 189

kechnia.org/maharsham • To sponsor an issue l’illui nishmas or l’zechus a loved one ($360), contact info@kechnia.org

THE SHOCHET AND THE SEVENTH GOOSE

A shochet makes a catastrophic error, tries to cover it up, and seven geese hang in the balance.

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

A shochet was given seven geese. He shechted six.

Then, thinking the job was done, he cut the legs off all seven.

Suddenly someone shouted: “Look! one of them is still alive!”

The shochet had missed the seventh goose.

He quickly shechted it, brushed off the concern, and mixed all seven geese together.

By the time the Rav heard what had happened, two of the geese had already been sold.

Now the question was no longer simple. One goose may have been dismembered while still alive. The shochet’s reliability was now in doubt. The seven geese were mixed together. Two were already in buyers’ hands. Every bird was under suspicion.

And the Maharsham had to decide: Could any of these geese still be eaten?

To Rav Alter Shapira, Av Beis Din of Vikna (Vijnița) in Bukovina.

Translator’s Note: Vijnița sits in the Bukovina region (today in western Ukraine). Note also the remarkable appearance of the Maharsham’s grandson R’ Moshe, who inserts his own analytical challenge directly into the body of the teshuvah.

THE QUESTION

Someone noticed the seventh goose was still alive. The shochet brushed it off. “There is no problem with the geese,” he said. “The only issue is the legs.”

He then shechted the seventh goose and allowed all seven birds to be mixed together. But there was a much bigger question hiding underneath the first one: if the shochet had not even realized that he was cutting the legs off a living bird, could anyone still trust his shechitah on the other six?

After two of the seven geese had already been sold, Rav Shapira heard what had happened. He notified everyone involved, and now had to decide: What is the status of all seven geese?

The problems piled up quickly. The legs cut from the living goose were ever min hachai — limbs taken from a living animal, an issur dioraisa. The seventh goose itself had now been shechted by a shochet whose reliability was in question. All seven geese had been mixed together, with no way to identify which was which. And two of them were already in buyers’ hands.

Rav Shapira now turned to the Maharsham, one of the great poskim of the generation, and asked: Could any of these geese still be permitted?

THE MAHARSHAM’S ANALYSIS

1. Can One Bad Goose Be Nullified?

The first issue was simple in theory. When one prohibited item becomes mixed into a majority of permitted items, halachah generally says the prohibited item is nullified — batel b’rov. Here, there were seven geese. At most, one was clearly problematic. So why not say that the one questionable goose is nullified among the other six?

But Rav Shapira raised the complication that could undo everything. A whole goose might be considered a chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid — an important piece of food, “fit to serve before an honored guest.” Such an item is not nullified, no matter how many permitted pieces surround it. Its importance gives it independent halachic standing. If the questionable goose has that status, the majority cannot help. Without that problem, the goose is batel. With it, the entire mixture remains stuck.

2. Did Bitul Happen Before Anyone Realized There Was a Problem?

The next question was timing. When the geese were first mixed, no one had yet treated the situation as a real issur problem. The birds still had their feathers. They looked alike. The question is: does bitul happen automatically at the moment of mixture, even before anyone realizes there is a prohibition involved? Or does it only begin once the problem becomes known?

The Bach rules that if a mixture is later split before the prohibition becomes known, each separated group can be judged on its own. In each group, we can still say: perhaps the forbidden item is somewhere else. The Shach disagrees, but the Maharsham notes that important poskim support the Bach, including the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. That matters here because the seven geese did not remain together. Five stayed with the owner, and two were sold before anyone realized the problem.

3. Did Selling Two Geese Help?

At first glance, the buyer who received two geese has a strong argument. Since six out of seven geese were presumed kosher, perhaps we apply kol d’parish mei’ruba parish — whatever separates is presumed to have come from the majority. In plain English: if something leaves a mixed group, we assume it came from the larger, permitted side.

But the Maharsham sees the danger in that. If we clear the buyer’s two geese by saying they probably came from the kosher majority, then we have made the remaining five worse. The doubt has not disappeared; it has simply been pushed back onto the owner. You cannot easily solve one person’s problem by making the other person’s problem heavier.

Still, the Maharsham finds room to distinguish this case. If the forbidden goose had already been known before the geese separated, then the mixture might have been frozen in place as a case of chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid, where nullification does not work. But here, when the geese were mixed and when the two were sold, the birds still had their feathers. An unplucked goose is not exactly a dignified dish to serve an honored guest. The full “important piece” problem may only have developed later, once the birds were prepared and presentable. That weakens the strict side.

4. Is a Whole Goose Really an “Important Piece”?

This becomes the heart of the analysis. The Beis Yosef cites Rishonim, including the Rashba and the Ran, who hold that a live, whole creature is not considered chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid. The Badei HaShulchan also writes that since this entire category is rabbinic, we should follow the lenient view in cases of doubt.

The Rama, however, rules stringently, and that strict practice is well established. A whole goose or chicken can be considered important because it was once customary to honor a guest at a chasunah or siyum with a whole bird. But the Maharsham makes a sharp observation: that reasoning depends on social practice. If the whole category is built on the custom of serving an honored guest a whole bird, then what happens when that custom is no longer common?

The Maharsham says that in his time, this was no longer the practice. People were not honoring guests that way anymore. That does not erase the Rama, but it does weaken the force of the stringency — especially in a difficult case involving financial loss.

5. Two Rabbinic Stringencies Stacked Together

Now the Maharsham’s path to be meikel becomes clearer. The strict position depends on two separate rabbinic layers. First, the rule that bitul does not help after the issur becomes known is derabannan, because on a Torah level, bitul works from the moment the mixture happens. Second, the rule that a chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid is never nullified is also a derabbanan.

That means this case is not a simple deoraysa standing alone. It is a deoraysa-level bitul being blocked by two chumros stacked on top of each other. The Pri Megadim allows more room for leniency when two rabbinic concerns combine in this way. So the Maharsham has several factors pointing in the same direction: the mixture may have been batul from the start, the “important piece” status is disputed, the birds were not yet presentable when mixed, and the old custom of honoring guests with a whole bird may no longer apply.

6. The Grandson Pushes Back

The Maharsham’s grandson, R’ Moshe, inserts a challenge: The whole lenient argument depends on saying that the issur was “not known” at the time the geese were mixed. But was it really unknown?

People had seen the seventh goose alive. They had questioned the shochet! The facts were already there. What was missing was not information, but proper halachic understanding of that information.

R’ Moshe compares this to cases in the Gemara where something is technically unknown to one person, but known or discoverable elsewhere. If a sin will inevitably become known, is it considered hidden now? If a lost animal is unknown to its owner but known to someone far away, is it truly lost? R’ Moshe argues that this case was also destined to come out. A shochet cutting the legs off a live bird is not the kind of thing that stays quiet. Once a competent Rav looked at the facts, the problem became obvious.

That challenge narrows the Maharsham’s leniency. The Maharsham leaves his grandson’s objection in the teshuvah, allowing it to stand as a serious warning: the case may be lenient, but it is not clean.

✶ ✶ ✶

THE P’SAK

The Maharsham rules that if the loss would be significant for the owner — hefsed Merubah — the five remaining geese may be permitted.

But he does not treat the case as simple. The leniency rests on several factors working together: the bitul d’oraysa that may have taken effect from the moment the geese were mixed; the Rishonim who hold that a whole live bird is not a chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid; the fact that the strict side depends on two rabbinic stringencies stacked together; and the Maharsham’s observation that, in his time, whole birds were no longer the standard way to honor important guests.

In other words, the Maharsham found room to be mattir the birds in this specific context.

The ruling depends on real financial loss. Without that, he does not present this as an easy heter. The five geese remaining in Vikna were not automatically lost, but neither were they casually permitted. The Maharsham allows them only because several halachic pressures point in the same direction.

And even after the geese were dealt with, the deeper problem remained: the shochet had either made a terrible mistake or had tried to cover it up. The Maharsham addressed the kashrus of the geese. The kashrus of the shochet was left for Rav Shapira to face.

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This teshuvah gives us a glimpse into how fragile the kosher meat supply could be in a small Galician or Bukovinan town. The shochet was not just another worker. In many communities, he was the person standing between having what to eat… or needing to subsist on bread and vegetables.

So when his judgment came into question, the problem did not stay private. It spread outward — to families, buyers, money already spent, food already prepared, and a Rav who now had to decide whether to be strict and create a real financial loss, or find legitimate halachic grounds to save what could still be saved.

The shochet’s behavior is hard to read generously. He dismissed the concern, shechted the seventh goose as if nothing serious had happened, and allowed all seven birds to be mixed together. That suggests either shocking carelessness… or something even worse.

The Maharsham does not directly rule on whether this shochet was fit to continue serving as town shochet (What do you think?). But the careful, conditional nature of his psak says a great deal. He treats the geese as a case that may be rescued, not as a routine question with an easy answer.

And then there is the appearance of the Maharsham’s grandson, R’ Moshe. That small detail opens a window into the Maharsham’s home and his chinuch — where the next generation’s voice could stand beside his own, not hidden, but preserved in the sugya.

KEY TERMS

Chaticha ha-re’uya l’hiskabeid – Literally, “a piece fit to serve before an honored guest.” A halachic category for items considered too important to be nullified in a mixture, regardless of ratio. Whether a whole goose qualifies is the central dispute of this teshuvah.

Bitul b’rov – Nullification by majority. When a prohibited item is mixed with a majority of permitted items, Torah law treats the prohibited item as nullified. Rabbinic law adds conditions.

FOR THE SHABBOS TABLE

1. The Maharsham’s leniency depends partly on a change in social custom. A whole bird was once considered an honorable dish to serve an important guest; in the Maharsham’s time, he says that was no longer the common practice. When a halachic category depends on how people actually behave, how should poskim decide whether the reality has changed?

2. The shochet dismissed the concern, shechted the seventh goose, and allowed all seven birds to be mixed together. The Maharsham’s teshuvah focuses on the geese, not on the shochet. What do you think Rav Shapira had to do next?

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

Coming next week: A flash flood tears a family from their home. Days later, a battered body washes up downstream. Can scars, teeth, and torn clothing free a young agunah to remarry?

PRINCIPAL SOURCES CITED

Gemara: Chullin 8a, 95; Zevachim 23a; Shevuos 9b; Temurah 22b; Beitzah; Yevamos 82b

Rishonim: Rashba; Ran; Ramban; Rosh; Sefer HaEshkol (Hilchos Ta’aruvos 29); Or Zarua (Perek Gid HaNasheh 458); Sefer HaTerumah (50); Tosafos

Shulchan Aruch & Nosei Keilim: YD 100, 101, 109, 110, 111; Shach; Taz; Sifsei Da’as; Pri Megadim; Rama; Beis Yosef

Acharonim: Bach (109); Shulchan Aruch HaRav; Imrei Eish (38); R’ Moshe Schick (125); Badei HaShulchan; Terumas HaDeshen

A posek cannot save the meat and ignore the man who mishandled it. The geese were rescued; the harder question walked out the door with the shochet.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

This translation is presented for Torah study and enrichment purposes only. It is not intended as halacha l’maaseh. The translator has made every effort to render the Maharsham’s words faithfully, but this English adaptation may contain errors or imprecisions. For any practical halachic question, consult your own Rav.

The Maharsham Project • kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

A House That Remembers — When a Shul Becomes a Problem

2026-04-16T06:24:44-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Issue 004 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek III, Siman 206

kechnia.org/maharsham • To sponsor an issue l’illui nishmas or l’zechus a loved one ($360), contact info@kechnia.org

A HOUSE THAT REMEMBERS

A beis haknesses empties out. Yidden don’t want to live in a “former shul.” Can its owner rent to a non-Jew, or must he suffer with an empty, unusable property and mounting financial loss?

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

A Jewish homeowner in Tarnow had hosted a minyan in his house for twenty years. When the congregation finally purchased their own building and moved out, no Jewish tenant would touch the space. They were afraid of its lingering kedushah. A non-Jewish tenant stood ready to pay handsomely.

The Maharsham was asked: does the holiness of a place where Yidden once davened forbid renting it to a non-Jew, even at ruinous cost to the owner?

To Rav Avraham Yehuda Arshitzer, moreh tzedek of Tarnow, Galicia (today southeastern Poland).

Translator’s Note: Tarnow was home to a substantial Jewish community in the late nineteenth century. The question reveals a social reality rarely addressed explicitly in halachic literature: the economic burden that kedushah could impose on ordinary Yidden. A homeowner who had done a chesed by hosting a minyan for two decades now found himself unable to use his own property, effectively penalized for his generosity.

THE QUESTION

For twenty years, a steady minyan gathered in a rented room inside a house in Tarnow. Year after year, the arrangement was renewed. The congregants paid rent, and the homeowner provided the space.

Eventually, the congregation prospered. They raised funds, purchased a proper beis haknesses, and moved out.

The homeowner was left with an empty room and a serious problem.

No Jewish family would rent the space. Word had spread: this was a place of longstanding tefillah. The room carried an aura of kedushah, and people were reluctant to treat it as ordinary living quarters. No one wanted to be the one eating, sleeping, or conducting mundane activity in a room that had housed a Sefer Torah and echoed with Kaddish.

A non-Jewish tenant appeared, offering close to one hundred reinish, a significant sum. Without him, the house would remain empty, and the owner would suffer a substantial financial loss.

Rav Arshitzer examined the issue carefully. He found support in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 154:2) and the Chasam Sofer that kedushah created through rental does not persist after the rental ends.

However, a difficulty remained. The Knesses HaGedolah, cited in the Sha’arei Teshuvah, rules that even after kedushah lapses, one may not treat the space with disrespect. The Taz writes that the presence of a non-Jew, or of filth, constitutes such disrespect.

Caught between the owner’s financial loss and the stringency of the Taz, Rav Arshitzer turned to the Maharsham.

THE MAHARSHAM’S ANALYSIS

1. Reframing the Taz

The Maharsham challenges the assumption. The Taz states that a non-Jew’s presence constitutes bizayon. However, the Magen Avraham (55:15) explains that the concern is not the non-Jew himself, but the possibility of avodah zarah being brought into the space. The Dvar Shmuel agrees.

True, others, citing the Beis Dovid, disagree. But even they are discussing a space where tefillah is still ongoing. Their concern is that a gentile presence disrupts the sanctity of active tefillah.

Here, however, the minyan has left. The kedushah tied to active use has already ceased. Why should a non-Jew living there now be considered a bizayon?

2. Rental to a Non-Jew Functions as a Sale

Even if the tenant were to bring avodah zarah into the space, the Maharsham addresses this as well.

The Rosh (Avodah Zarah, Perek 1), cited by the Shach (Y.D. 151:17), establishes that for a non-Jew, rental is halachically equivalent to a sale. Once rented, the space is considered his domain for the duration.

And all the more so here, where the kedushah itself originated through rental. That which entered through rental departs through rental.

3. Even More Permanent Kedushah Can Be Removed

The Maharsham cites R’ Yisrael of Shklov (Pe’as HaShulchan, Responsa 131), who rules that when sacred vessels are seized, their kedushah departs entirely, based on the Gemara: “Ba’u bah pritzim v’chileluha.” If even theft can remove kedushah, then certainly a legitimate rental can do so.

The Tashbetz adds that a private room designated for a personal minyan retains the status of private property. The owner may sell it or repurpose it, even for mundane use. The kedushah never left his control. He is permitted to remove the kedushah lechatchila.

4. The Village Shul Precedent

The Maharsham’s decisive proof comes from the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 153:9): a village shul, sold by the sheva tuvei ha’ir, may be converted by the buyer to any use, even degrading ones.

If an actual beis haknesses can be repurposed while still bearing kedushah, then certainly a private home, whose rental-based kedushah has already lapsed, may be rented to a non-Jew.

The warnings of the Knesses HaGedolah, of avoiding uses of bizayon, apply only lechatchila, before transfer. Once the property is transferred, b’diavad, any remaining kedushah is removed.

5. One Must Not Cause Financial Loss

The Maharsham concludes with a fundamental principle: Ein l’hafsid mammon Yisrael b’chinam. One may not cause a Jew to incur financial loss without justification.

The homeowner hosted a minyan for twenty years. Halachah does not require him to pay for that chesed with financial ruin.

He cites the Maharam of Padua (Siman 65), the source of the Rema (O.C. 153:16): the presumption is that a person does not rent out property on terms that would ultimately cause him loss. The rental itself was never intended to create a permanent kedushah that would harm the owner.

✶ ✶ ✶

THE P’SAK

The Maharsham rules clearly: the homeowner may rent the space to the non-Jew.

The kedushah entered through rental and departed when the rental ended. The space returned to its status as ordinary property. Renting it to a non-Jew is treated as a transfer of domain, and any residual kedushah is fully removed.

The owner is not required to suffer financial loss for the sake of a sanctity that has already lapsed.

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This teshuvah opens a window onto a common but rarely documented dilemma in Galician Jewish life. Hosting a minyan in a private home was widespread. Not every community could afford a dedicated shul, and even those that could often started with a rented room in someone’s house. The transition from a house-minyan to a proper beis haknesses was a milestone of communal growth. But the host who made that growth possible could find himself holding a property that nobody would touch.

A room that became sacred through a lease lost that sanctity when the lease expired, not because holiness is cheap, but because the halachic system itself defines exactly how far sanctity extends.

KEY TERMS

Sheva tuvei ha’ir – The seven trustees of a town, whose unanimous consent can authorize the sale of communal sacred property, including a beis haknesses.

Kedushah she’ba’ah mi’sechirus – Sanctity that entered through rental rather than ownership. The Maharsham treats this as inherently lighter. What came through a lease departs when the lease ends.

Ba’u bah pritzim v’chileluha – “Vandals entered and profaned it.” A principle from Avodah Zarah 52b establishing that forced transfer strips sanctity from sacred objects. The Maharsham applies this kal va’chomer to voluntary, legitimate transactions.

FOR THE SHABBOS TABLE

1. The congregants moved to a nicer building and left the homeowner stuck. Did they owe him anything, financially or morally, for the transition?

2. The Yidden of Tarnow refused to rent the space out of reverence for its history. Is that instinct admirable, or does the Maharsham’s ruling suggest they were being machmir beyond what the law requires?

3. When you’ve done a long-term chesed that eventually ends, have you ever felt that the chesed itself became a burden? How did you handle the transition?

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

Coming next week: A shochet slaughters six of seven geese, then discovers the seventh is still alive. Now every bird is suspect.

PRINCIPAL SOURCES CITED

Gemara: Avodah Zarah 52b; Eruvin

Rishonim: Rosh (Avodah Zarah, Perek 1); Tosafos (Eruvin); Tashbetz (Vol. 4, 1:7)

Shulchan Aruch & Nosei Keilim: O.C. 153:9; O.C. 154:2; Rema 153:16; Taz (end of 151); Magen Avraham 55:15; Shach Y.D. 151:17; Sha’arei Teshuvah O.C. 154:2

Acharonim: Chasam Sofer O.C. 32; Knesses HaGedolah (cited in Sha’arei Teshuvah); Dvar Shmuel; Beis Dovid; Maharam of Padua 65; R’ Yisrael of Shklov, Pe’as HaShulchan, Responsa 131

A man who opens his door for twenty years of tefillah should not find that door locked against him when the tefillos move on.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

The Maharsham Project • kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

He Returned Every Penny. The Torah Said: Not Enough.

2026-04-10T07:27:17-04:00

שו״ת מהרש״ם

THE MAHARSHAM PROJECT

Weekly Teshuvah Insights from the Maharsham of Brezhan

Volume III • Issue 003 • Teshuvos Maharsham, Chelek III, Siman 290

kechnia.org/maharsham • To sponsor an issue l’illui nishmas or l’zechus a loved one ($360), contact info@kechnia.org

THE THIEF WHO PAID IT BACK

A robber returns every penny he stole. Is he now a trustworthy witness, or does the Torah demand something more?

📄 DOWNLOAD THE FULL ISSUE (PDF)

A scholar struggles with a famous Rambam: a thief or robber who returns the stolen money remains disqualified as a witness until he demonstrates genuine repentance. If he has already made financial restitution, what more does the law demand? The question troubled the Tur and generations of commentators.

The Maharsham, in a few crisp lines, shows that the answer was provided by the Rambam himself, in a different section of the Mishneh Torah.

To R’ Berel Weinberg of Wieliczka (Vyelitchka).

Translator’s Note: Wieliczka is the famous salt-mining town near Kraków in Galicia. The questioner is addressed as “ha’charif,” the sharp one, a respectful title for a keen talmid chacham. This is one of the Maharsham’s shorter teshuvos, but it carries a memorable insight: the answer to a long-standing difficulty was sitting in the Rambam’s own code, in a section no one thought to check.

THE QUESTION

The Rambam rules (Hilchos Eidus, codified in Choshen Mishpat 34:6) that a ganav or gazlan who returns the stolen money remains disqualified from serving as a witness until he can demonstrate that he has done genuine teshuvah.

This ruling troubled the Tur and the meforshim who followed him. If the man has returned what he stole, he has fulfilled the Torah’s requirement of hashavah, restitution. What further act of repentance could be required? He is no longer holding stolen property. He has made the victim whole. In what sense is he still a rasha, a person whose conduct disqualifies him from testifying?

R’ Berel Weinberg writes to the Maharsham proposing an answer: The Gemara in Bava Kamma (60a), states that a person who assaults another and then pays compensation is still called a rasha. The act of violence itself leaves a moral stain that payment alone cannot remove. Perhaps the same logic applies to theft, he reasons: returning the money addresses the financial wrong but not the moral one?

THE MAHARSHAM’S ANALYSIS

1. A Good Idea, But Not a New One

The Maharsham acknowledges that Weinberg’s reasoning from Bava Kamma is sound in principle. But it is not original. The Hagahos Asheri Betzalel already cited this passage, and the Maharsham notes that the same point appears in the Maharit (Teshuvos, second edition, Choshen Mishpat Siman 90).

2. The Rambam’s Own Source

The Maharsham then makes his central point.

With proper deference to the earlier meforshim, the Maharsham observes that the Rambam himself explains his own source in a different section of the Mishneh Torah. In Hilchos Teshuvah (1:1), at the end of the halacha, the Rambam derives this requirement from the verse “kol chatas ha’adam,” “any sin that a person commits” (Bamidbar 5:6). The Kesef Mishneh and the commentary Tiferes Yisrael cite the Yalkut Shimoni on Parshas Naso, which quotes the Sifrei Zuta making this explicit: the verse refers specifically to sins between a person and his fellow, such as “the thefts and the robberies,” and requires confession and repentance in addition to financial restitution.

The Torah itself distinguishes between making someone financially whole and making oneself spiritually whole. Returning the money fulfills one obligation. But the verse demands a separate act: vidui (confession) and teshuvah for the interpersonal sin. Until that is done, the person remains in a state of spiritual deficit, and therefore, he remains disqualified as a witness.

3. Why the Form of Restitution Does Not Change the Answer

R’ Weinberg had also proposed distinguishing between a thief who returns the exact stolen object and one who pays monetary compensation. The Maharsham sets this distinction aside. Since the Rambam’s source is the verse requiring repentance for all interpersonal sins, the form of restitution is irrelevant. Whether one hands back the stolen cow or pays its value, the Torah still requires an independent act of teshuvah. The financial and the spiritual are separate obligations.

✶ ✶ ✶

THE P’SAK

The Rambam’s ruling stands on its own scriptural foundation, and the difficulty that troubled generations of commentators dissolves once you look where the Rambam himself pointed.

A thief who returns stolen money has discharged his financial obligation. He has not yet discharged his spiritual one. Until he demonstrates genuine repentance, not merely restoration of property but transformation of character, he remains unfit to testify. The Torah demands both: the money back and the heart changed.

The answer, the Maharsham concludes, was sitting in the Rambam’s own words all along.

✶ ✶ ✶

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This teshuvah is brief, but its insight is striking. The Maharsham does not elaborate or belabor the point. He simply observes that the answer to a difficulty which occupied generations of meforshim had been provided by the Rambam himself, in a different section of the Mishneh Torah, with the derivation made explicit in the Sifrei Zuta preserved in Yalkut Shimoni.

The lesson extends beyond this particular ruling. The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah is organized by topic, and a ruling in Hilchos Eidus (laws of testimony) may find its explanation in Hilchos Teshuvah (laws of repentance). When searching for the background of a halacha, it is natural to look first at the Tur, the Beis Yosef, and the nosei keilim on that siman. The Maharsham reminds us, respectfully, that the Rambam is sometimes his own best mefaresh, and that a difficulty in one section of the Mishneh Torah may be resolved by a passage the Rambam places in another.

The brevity of the teshuvah is itself a statement. “There is no more time to elaborate,” the Maharsham writes, not because the subject is unworthy, but because the answer is complete.

KEY TERMS

Ganav / Gazlan – A thief (ganav) steals covertly; a robber (gazlan) takes by force or openly. Both are disqualified from testifying. The distinction matters elsewhere in halacha, but here the Rambam treats them identically.

Hashavah – Restitution. The return of stolen property or its monetary equivalent. A necessary but, as this teshuvah demonstrates, insufficient condition for the thief’s rehabilitation.

Pasul l’eidus – Disqualified from serving as a witness. A person who has committed certain sins loses the legal standing to testify in beis din until the disqualification is removed through repentance.

Vidui – Confession. The Rambam, based on the Sifrei Zuta, requires verbal confession of interpersonal sins as a component of teshuvah, separate from financial restitution.

FOR THE SHABBOS TABLE

1. The Maharsham shows that the answer to a famous difficulty was sitting in the Rambam’s own code, just in a different section. Have you ever spent a long time searching for an answer that turned out to be right in front of you?

2. The Torah requires both returning stolen money and doing teshuvah. Why do you think these are treated as separate obligations? Isn’t giving back what you stole already an act of repentance?

3. The Maharsham says, with evident respect, that the Tur and his successors did not rely on the source in Hilchos Teshuvah. Why do you think a ruling placed in one section of the Mishneh Torah can be overlooked by those searching in another, and what does that teach about how we learn?

WHO WAS THE MAHARSHAM?

Coming next week: A prayer space empties out after twenty years. Can the owner rent it to a non-Jew, or must he watch his investment crumble?

Please note that in the previous issue, we gave a teaser as to what would be the content of this week’s teshuvah. We decided going forward to randomize the teshuvos and not go in order, so it should be different every week and not grouped by having several weeks of the same type of teshuvah one after the other.

PRINCIPAL SOURCES CITED

Gemara: Bava Kamma 60a

Rishonim: Rambam (Hilchos Eidus via Shulchan Aruch CM 34:6; Hilchos Teshuvah 1:1); Tur (CM 34)

Shulchan Aruch & Nosei Keilim: CM 34:6; Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Teshuvah); Tiferes Yisrael

Midrash: Sifrei Zuta (Parshas Naso), cited in Yalkut Shimoni

Acharonim: Maharit (Teshuvos, CM 90, second edition); Hagahos Asheri Betzalel

Returning the money makes the victim whole. Only teshuvah makes the thief whole.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

The Maharsham Project • kechnia.org/maharsham
L’illui nishmas R’ Shalom Mordechai HaKohen Schwadron zt”l • info@kechnia.org

1309 ave L
Brooklyn New York 11230
US

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options