By Rabbi Yair Hoffman As many people have seen or heard, former prime minister Naftali Bennett filed a NIS 1 million (over $292,000) defamation lawsuit this week against Rabbi Ronen Shaulov.  Rabbi Shaulov is a baal teshuvah who has succeeded in inspiring thousands toward a religious life.  The lawsuit was because the Rabbi had falsely claimed that Bennett’s parents, Myrna and Jim, were Reform Jewish converts and, therefore, not halachically Jewish. How do we know that the Rabbi’s claims are wrong?  We have six reasons.  Based upon a thorough examination of government documents, we know the following: Naftali Bennet’s mother is named Myrna Bennet. Her maiden name was Lefko.  This is short for Lefkowitz.  Most Lefko’s and Lefkowitz’s are Jewish. Myrna’s mother was Mildred nee Szewc. She was born on February 16, 1903 in Wsielub, Grodno in Belarus.  Szewc is a Jewish name and Grodno was a very Jewish area. She passed away in Haifa in August of 1989. Mildred’s mother was Minya-Lenka Leah Chertok. Leah and Chertok are Jewish names. She was born in 1868. She passed away in 1917 in Novardik. Mildred was the fourth of seven children.   Her eldest brother was Max Shaff(1890–1953), followed by her sister Elke Szewc(1892–1941), and another sister, Rosa Szewc(1899–1942), a sister Fanny (1906), a brother Michael (1907-1933) who passed away in Havana Cuba, and another brother Sydney Shaff (1911-1977).  All of the siblings were born in Wsielub, Grodno. Two sisters, Elke and Rosa were murdered in the holocaust.  All of these names are very Jewish. Mildred’s father was Leiser Eliezer Borishanski-Szewc. He was born in 1868 and passed away in Warsaw, Mazowieckie, Poland in 1920.  Lazer and Eliezer and Borishansky are all Jewish names. Mildren was living in Brooklyn in the year 1935. She married Irvin (Israel) Lefko Lewkosicz (1905-1990), on January 29, 1936 in Brooklyn, New York. These are all very Jewish names. Why not subscribe to this author’s weekly parsha sheet on Emes – Truth?  Just send an email with the word “subscribe” in it to [email protected] While a Rav on Long Island in the 1990’s and 2000’s, I was relied upon by the Eidah HaChareidis, the Rabbanut, and Rav Belsky zt”l to accurately research matters of yuchsin.  Regarding the lawsuit, there are two halachic issues here.  The first is that it is very wrong to call someone a different status than they are.  The second issue is that it is forbidden to sue another Jew in secular court. Doing so is violation of a prohibition called going to “Arkaos.” THE FALSE DEFAMATION PROHIBITION The offending Rabbi should apologize to Bennett and perhaps review the pertinent section of the Talmud in Bava Metziah 58b: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is the transgression of verbal mistreatment than the transgression of monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, verbal mistreatment, it is stated: “And you shall fear Hashem.” But with regard to that, monetary exploitation, it is not stated: “And you shall fear Hashem.” And Rabbi Elazar said this explanation: This, verbal mistreatment, affects one’s body; but that, monetary exploitation, affects one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, monetary exploitation, is given to restitution; but that, verbal mistreatment, is not given to restitution.   The Gemara relates further: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com Former prime minister Naftali Bennett filed a NIS 1 million (over $292,000) defamation lawsuit this week against Rabbi Ronen Shaulov.  Rabbi Shaulov is a baal teshuvah who has succeeded in inspiring thousands toward a religious life.  The lawsuit was because the Rabbi had falsely claimed that Bennett’s parents, Myrna and Jim, were Reform Jewish converts and, therefore, not halachically Jewish. Bennett claimed that the defamatory accusations were seen by at least 700,000 people. Bennett Rabbi Shaulov has more than 150,000 followers across a variety of social media platforms. There are two halachic issues here.  The first is that it is very wrong to call someone a different status than they are.  The second issue is that it is forbidden to sue another Jew in secular court. Doing so is violation of a prohibition called going to “Arkaos.” THE FALSE DEFAMATION PROHIBITION The offending Rabbi should apologize to Bennett and perhaps review the pertinent section of the Talmud in Bava Metziah 58b: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is the transgression of verbal mistreatment than the transgression of monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, verbal mistreatment, it is stated: “And you shall fear Hashem.” But with regard to that, monetary exploitation, it is not stated: “And you shall fear Hashem.” And Rabbi Elazar said this explanation: This, verbal mistreatment, affects one’s body; but that, monetary exploitation, affects one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, monetary exploitation, is given to restitution; but that, verbal mistreatment, is not given to restitution. The Gemara relates further: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both Hashem and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: Isn’t that identical to one who shames him; why then are they listed separately? The Gemara answers:  Even though the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe. THE SECULAR COURT PROHIBITION The prohibition of going to arkaos is found in two early sources. It is a braisah cited in tractate Gittin 88b as well as a Mechilta in the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim. The braisah cites Rabbi Tarfon who learns out of a verse in the Torah: “These are the laws that you shall place before them – before them, and not before gentiles.” SHULCHAN ARUCH The halachah

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com Today was the second yahrtzeit of Moreinu HaGaon HaRav Dovid Feinstein zt”l. The Rosh Yeshiva had taken the helm of MTJ after his father, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, had passed away in 1986. Even before that, he was the Rosh Kollel of the Yeshiva in Staten Island. Reb Dovid headed the Yeshiva for 34 years. Rav Moshe zt”l had said about his son that he knew the entire Shas b’al peh and b’iyun – with great depth. He also knew the shitos rishonim on every sugya and he knew it in great depth. And while it was not so well known, almost every difficult halachic question posed in the United States that was referred elsewhere – was sent to Reb Dovid zt”l. He grasped the essence of the shailah in seconds. Often, he answered with just a few words. Years ago, the community in Kew Gardens had lost a precious gem – who had left a wonderful family.  The doctors had made an enormous mistake, and had they caught that mistake earlier, medical science said that he probably would have survived.  The community Askanim had taken upon itself to raise an enormous sum for the well-being of the family.  But first they needed to know whether a lawsuit should be brought.  The doctors who had failed would not have had to pay, it would have been the insurance company.  Reb Dovid did not answer affirmatively.  The askanim at first did not understand.  But then they slowly realized that this was how Reb Dovid zt”l often paskened.  Instead, they raised the money. Reb Dovid was once asked how hatzolah organizations should rule in regard to a dispute between the Mishna Brurah and the Aruch haShulchan. The issue is in a case of Pikuach Nefesh, a life- threatening matter, but it is not exactly an emergency – in other words there is plenty of time to deal with the situation and no one is in a state of panic or chaos. Do we attempt to minimize the Shabbos violation in such a case? Should we try to do it through a gentile, or to perform what needs to be done in a manner that only involves a Rabbinic violation? When there is plenty of time, and there is no concern of danger of any sort if there is a delay, the Ramah rules (OC 328:12) that we do attempt to minimize the Shabbos violations. While the other view (that of the Bais Yoseph and the Rambam 2:11) is that no minimization is required, Ashkenazic Jewry has followed the custom that we do minimize Shabbos violation when no delay or confusion will be incurred on account of the minimization. This is the view of the Raavya cited in the Ohr Zaruah, the Shiltei Gibborim, and the Maggid Mishna (Hilchos Shabbos 2:11 citing the Ramban) and is cited by the Ramah as the authoritative halacha. This also seems to be how the Mishna Brurah rules. The Aruch HaShulchan adopts the Beis Yoseph’s view. Reb Dovid answered that the question cannot be answered across the board – each Posaik of each hatzolah should pasken in accordance with his community. However, Reb Dovid stated that he himself would pasken like the Aruch HaShulchan. Klal Yisroel, of course, mourns for the loss of

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com l’refuah shleimah for Reb Binyonim Zev ben Charna Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l was a Rosh Yeshiva in the Slabodka Yeshiva (along with Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein zt”l) before he became the Rosh Yeshiva of Slutzk.  He was not paid by the Yeshiiva, and supported himself through his wife had a dry goods store where she sold cloth, among other things.  The problem was that the location was in the basement of a makom Avodah Zarah, and she paid them rent. What was the cheshbon wherein Rav Isser Zalman reasoned that it would be permitted.  Based on a later psak given by Rav Moshe Feinstein cited in the fascinating work called “Kuntrus Ma Nomar” by Rav Nosson Yoseph Miller (p, 95), this author would like to suggest the following: There is a concept called “Breirah” which means the assignment of which specific portion is allocated to whom.  For Torah prohibitions, the ruling is that if a part of it comes from something forbidden – then one may not assume that “your allocation” stems from the permitted section.  However, when dealing with a Rabbinic prohibition, we rule that there is Breirah [See Rambam Hilchos Trumah 1:21 and Hilchos Maaser (7:1)]. Rav Moshe ruled that since they would be able to rent it otherwise to someone else and that the amount of rental income would not be enough to maintain teh actual Avodah Zarah worship – it would be permitted because we can assume that teh breirah goes to permitted items. Another possible answer can be found in a conversation his author had with Rav Dovid Feinstein, zt’l, some 18 years ago. In the Talmudic texts that deal with the concept of lifnei iver, there is an apparent contradiction. Depending upon how we resolve the apparent contradiction, we will gain new insight into the parameters and guidelines of lifnei iver even beyond the cases under discussion themselves. It is this author’s view that the guidelines of Rav Dovid Feinstein, zt’l, differ substantially from the guidelines of Rav Zilberstein, shlita. There is a concept known in halachah as teliyah — that whenever it is possible to assume a permitted purpose, even if that possibility is statistically or factually dubious, we do so. The Gemara in Nedarim 62a tells us that Rav Ashi had an avah, a forest, that he sold to an avodah zara fire temple. When asked about lifnei iver, he responded that most of the wood would be for ordinary heating and not avodah zara. The Ran explains that it is permitted because of teliyah. The Ran’s view is cited by the Taz in Y.D. 151. The Chasam Sofer in a responsum (Y.D. #9) fully explains this idea. However, there are other passages in the Gemara that indicate that there is a prohibition of lifnei iver whenever a strong likelihood of a violation exists. In Bava Metzia 75b, we see that it is a violation of lifnei iver to loan money when there are no witnesses. There is also such an indication from Bava Metzia 5b. Three Approaches to Resolution One approach to resolving the contradiction is that whenever there is a greater probability of a violation than a non-violation, then we do not assume a permitted purpose, and there is no lifnei iver. This is the approach of

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com Dedicated in memory of R’ Refoel Zev ben Chaim  Tzvi on his 15th yahrtzeit Rabbi Yisroel Salanter zt”l developed a highly sophisticated method of Mussar Theory and proposed this system to his students in a series of 31 letters printed in a work entitled Ohr Yisroel.  What follows is a restatement and re-organization of this system, including an amplification of the underlying message of Rav Salanter.    Occasionally, ideas from some of his immediate students, or grand-students, or even great grand-students will be employed to help further this along. The Creator is the Ultimate Giver.  We become greater by imitating Him.  This is the Mitzvah of v’halachta b’drachav.  The Gemorah in Shabbos tells us mah hu rachum af attah rachum.  Rav Yisroel Salanter explains that we can give to others by influencing them in Mussar Theory (Ohr Yisroel 5.1).  This helps get others on track, but also helps improve our own ways.    A good way to develop MUSSAR THEORY is to promote the insights and benefits of MUSSAR THEORY to others. (1.4).  This means, not just introducing it to them – but actively promoting specific insights and also specific benefits.  Creating analogies in secular knowledge as well as history helps promote Musar Game Theory too.  An example of this is the idea espoused by one of the leading Talmidim of the Alter of Slabodka, Rav Dovid Leibowitz.  He explained that at times, in order to motivate ourselves to do the right thing – we have to burn our bridges, so to speak.  In parshas b’shalach, the pasuk tells us velo nacham elokim lailech derech eretz plishtim ki karov hu.     MUSSAR THEORY explores all of the pathways, actions, and psychological aspects of the person.  It is also the best manner in which to keep a person on track, awakening various motivational tools within the person (1.1) There are three steps involved in changing a trait: Recognizing it as a fault, controlling the fault, changing the fault. (30.4) MUSSAR THEORY protects a person from being distracted by the Yetzer Harah. (1.2) MUSSAR THEORY requires effort in both restraining oneself from committing evil as well as changing oneself into a force of good (17.2).  Human beings have a potential to fall to the lowest depths.  They also have the ability to rise to the highest heights. Even if you do not detect change in your personal MUSSAR CONDUCT – it enters the subconscious mind and makes a difference.  The Yetzer Harah has an extraordinary ability to distract us from our goals.  The Mesilas Yesharim describes him as Ki ish milchama hu, umelumad b’armimus – He is a man of war skilled in the art of deceiving.  The best way to tackle this is the realization that growth in MUSSAR always makes a difference and enters the subconscious mind. MUSSAR THEORY can only be internalized by implementing tailor-made strategies. (1.3) MUSSAR THEORY requires daily times of studying its underlying theories. (2.1) There are two aspects to developing one’s own MUSSAR THEORY: learning from error (2.2) learning to use it on the fly in real-life practical situations. (2.2) One must draw people toward the use of MUSSAR THEORY. (2.3) When drawing others to it, one should highlight one’s own skills in specific areas of MUSSAR THEORY. (2.4) Everyone must employ MUSSAR THEORY (3.1) Methods invoked in refining one particular character trait may not necessarily work

[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times] In honor of the wedding of the author’s daughter this evening, please find below some Psakim from rav Elyashiv zt”l regarding weddings.  Unless otherwise noted, these p’sakim were heard from Rav Elyashiv zt”l by either Rav Lipa Israelson or one of his brothers. THE WEDDING CHUPAH ________________________________________ MESADER KIDDUSHIN 1. One should only conduct a wedding under the auspices of a Rav or Talmid Chochom that is knowledgeable in matters of Kiddushin. He is clled the Mesader Kiddushin. 2. Someone who married a woman through a Mesader Kiddushin who is a Reform Rabbi r”l, should ask a shailah if there is validity to his Kiddushin and marriage. It is possible that he must perform a Chuppah anew. 3. There are those who have the custom that the bride’s father comes to greet the groom at his home in order to accompany him to the Chuppah. Similarly, the mother of the groom comes to greet the bride. However, with the agreement of both sides it is permitted to forego this custom. THE CUSTOM OF SHOSHVINIM 4. The custom is for two people to bring the groom to the Chuppah, one on the right and one on the left. They are called “Shoshvinim.” The wives of the Shoshvinim bring the bride to the Chuppah. The father of the groom accompanies him on the right, and his mechutan accompanies the groom on the left. The mother of the bride is to her right and the mother-in-law is to her left. The Shoshvinim also accompany the groom to the bedekin which is called the “Hinoma.” WHO ARE THE SHOSHVINIM 5. The common custom is for the parents of the bride and groom to be the Shoshvinim. When this is not possible, some have the custom for the Shoshvinim to be the father and a sister of the groom or bride, or a mother and a brother of the groom or bride. Similarly, the Shoshvinim could be any husband and wife, even if they are not the groom or the bride’s parents. 6. There is no problem if the Shoshvinim are from a second marriage, such as if the groom’s mother is married to a second husband, who is not the groom’s father. She can be on the left of the bride and her husband can be on the right of the groom, and vice versa. There is no problem with either way. Some, however, are careful about this. However, if there is a need to do it in this manner, there is no need to be concerned. *** Please Subscribe to an Exciting Weekly Parsha Sheet on the Topic of Emes written by the reviewer, Rabbi Hoffman***   Send an email to  [email protected] THE BEDEKIN 7. Before the Chuppah, the groom is escorted by the Shoshvinim ad the two witnesses to the women’s section, to the place where the bride is sitting. The groom covers the head of the bride with a veil or some other designated garment. This is called the Hinoma. According to many authorities, the covering of the bride with a Hinoma is called the Chuppah. 8. The bride and groom should have in mind that the covering of the veil on her head is a Kinyan of marriage just like Chuppah.

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com His name is Rav Daniel Osher Kleinman, a Rav in Flatbush, and he is responsible for bringing us the halachic psakim of Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky in his Kovetz Halachos series on Shabbos and the Yomim Tovim, along with remarkable explanations.  That series will be reprinted for quite some time, this author predicts. Now, Rabbi Kleinman has produced his own two-volume set of responsa, entitled Bigdei Chamudos.  What follows is an unsolicited review of the work. The teshuvos are quite fascinating, contemporary, and very well researched and written.  Volume I has 177 responsa, and volume II has 178 responsa.  The two indices of sources and topics are enormously helpful.  Each volume contains responsa on all four sections of Shulchan Aruch. Best of all, however, there is a game-changer in this set of teshuvos.  They were reviewed by HaGaon HaRav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlita – with a section in the back of each volume delineating his conclusions. Some of the issues discussed are:  A yeshiva ketana buys a conservative synagogue that doesn’t ;follow Shulchan aruch– all the members are in their eighties – can the yeshiva ketana let them stay under their ownership – in the contract (Vol. I #100)?  May a Kohain enter a tent of a deceased gentile? In these responsa Rav Kleinman has a fascinating discussion with HaGaon HaRav Azriel Auerbach. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE HELP OUT A YASOM GETTING MARRIED https://thechesedfund.com/zechornilah/yasomgettingmarried In the last Teshuvah of Volume II, Rav Kleinman deals with cannabis, and finds halachic sources in Shas that address some of the underlying issues and questions. In Volume II Siman 33, Rav Kleinman gives us remarkable clarity in the topic of Nigrar – whether a woman follows her husband when he makes an early Shabbos.  Rav Kleinman cites all of the views and explains them very clearly.  This is paradigmatic of how he approaches halachic topics in general. There are also a number of medical teshuvos.  Should an ovary with a growth be removed if the doctors recommend to do so (Vol. II #161)?  What is the story with having to inform a future shidduch about the status of a compromised part of the reproductive system? In a responsa that is bound to be controversial, Rav Kleinman addresses the issue of whether or not a contemporary takanah of, say, the Moetzes Gedolei Torah of Agudas Yisroel is halachically binding or not (Vol. II #168).  This author would like suggest a marei makom that was not cited by Rabbi Kleinman shlita – the footnote in the Mossad HaRav Kook Sefer HaChinuch on the Mitzvah of listening to the chachomim.  It seems that the issue may be a debate between the Rambam and the Sefer HaChinuch. There is a responsa (Vol. II 137) that this author would humbly question the underlying rationale.  A yeshiva bochur wants to be in Yeshiva for Simchas Torah.  His mother would love him to be home and daven in the family shul.  This presents a true opportunity for the Kivud Av v’Aim, and, in this author’s opinion, Simchas Torah in Yeshiva should perhaps not set aside the Kivud Av v’Aim if the yeshiva bochur would learn more Torah at home than in Yeshiva on Simchas Torah (shuls spend less time for Simchas Torah than do Yeshivos).  True, there

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com Dedicated in honor of Dr. Mutty Weitz, of South Island Periodontics, a fine periodontist – by all accounts Pretty much all advances in technology, bring on new questions in halacha.  Dental implants are no different. The halachic questions abound.    Reuvain slugged Shimon in the face and knocked out a tooth – does he have to pay for Shimon’s implants?  Does a husband halachically have to provide implants for his wife? Can he opt for dentures? What if an implant fails or gets messed up.  Are there halachic obligations on the periodontist?  Are the temporary screw and temp tooth considered a chatzitzah regarding the laws of Mikvah?  Also, what is the halacha on Shabbos?  Is doing an implant considered “Boneh – building on Shabbos?” THE ONE DAY – ALL-IN-ONE PROCEDURE Perhaps the most recent advance in implantology is the ability to do the extraction and the implant and the temp tooth at the same time.  True, it takes 3 months or more to fully heal, but who wants two operations, when many times three appointments can be combined into one?  How does this affect the aforementioned halachic questions? What follows is a short overview of the halachic dimensions involved.  Of course each situation may be different and one should consult his or her own Posaik when it comes to a final ruling. THE KNOCKED-OUT TOOTH Let’s get to Reuvain and Shimon. Rabbi Meir Schwadron in Bais Aharon V’Yisroel Vol. 161, 5772 pages 161-165 argues that Reuvain is exempt from  paying for implants, because they do not heal  the underlying wound.  Rabbi Yoram Naaman in his Imrei Noam (#119) also rules that since that Reuvain would be exempt This author would like to question this conclusion.  When a tooth is knocked out the surrounding teeth will tend to move toward the area under vacuum and will be more likely to be lost as well.  It can be perhaps argued then, that the implant protects against this and would thus be halachically tortable in a Beis Din. A HUSBAND FOR THE WIFE Rav Avrohom Maimon in his Mishnas Avrohom (EH Siman 79 Os Ches Psak Halacha #3) rules that a husband is obligated to pay for dental implants. Let’s analyze this for a moment, as to how far this obligation extends. There is a concept in halacha where the wife can say to her husband – aini nizones – v’aini osah.  I won’t be supported by you, and the money that I earn will belong to me.  However, that is only in terms of the obligation of Mezonos – sustenance, or paying for her food support.  Does the obligation of Refuah emanate from the obligation of sustenance – or is it a separate obligation of the ten obligations a husband must provide for his wife?  One of the other obligations is redemption from kidnapping.  Believe it or not, some Poskim rule that healing is not subsumed under the Mezonos obligation.  The topic is thus subject to some dispute. Can the husband opt for dentures instead?  The short answer to this is, “no”, because he has an obligation to provide for her health care.  If he simply cannot afford it, then he would be able to provide her with dentures.  The husband cannot argue, “I told you to

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com It is one of the most neglected of virtues – dedicating oneself to only speak truth. Rav Chaim Kanievsky zatzal thought it so neglected and so important that he chose it as the very first topic of his Mussar Sefer entitled, Orchos Yosher.” So what can we do about it? The Sfas Tamim Foundation is dedicated to the dissemination of this value in Klal Yisroel. To this end, this organization has launched a weekly parsha sheet with 4 columns: 1] A column featuring the value of Emes as found in each week’s Parsa. 2] An inspirational story about Emes and or other aspects of Chizuk in this area. 3] A column of Piskei Halacha following teh Psakim of Rav Nachum Yavrov zt”;, whose seforim were declared by Rav Elyashiv zatzal as the most authoritative piskei halacha in any topic he wrote on 4] A translation of classic works on Emes beginning with Rav Chaim Kanevsky zatzal’s work , continuing with the Chofetz Chaim’s sefer on it. Some examples of the Parsa newsletters are included below. If anyone wishes to subscribe please email the author at [email protected] Sefas Tamim Bemidbar5 – FINAL Oh, and by the way, the name of his sefer is Sefas Tamim.  

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com It is an interesting question – if there is no chol haMoed for Shavuos, why is it important to know of its importance right before Shavuos? Shavuos is just before the summer, and many people in corporate America take vacations then. May one take vacation days in July and August if that would mean that they would have to work over Chol HaMo’ed? It is a very pertinent question because some 73% of Americans get a set number of paid vacation days each year.  Most of them get only 10 days.  Some get 4 days.  Others get 14.  And some even get 20.  All this is according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. To restate and better understand the question: Can an employee who gets, say, 10 vacation days a year – take them during August and go on summer vacation with his family – if that would mean that he would have to work over Chol Hamoed?  Or is this considered mechaven malachto lamoed – purposefully putting his work on Chol HaMoed rather than some other time? In other words, is a person obligated to take his or her vacation days on Chol HaMoed? Before we examine this question, however, let’s get some background on the meaning of mechaven melachto laMoed. THE PROHIBITION There is a prohibition discussed in the Mishna of Moed Kotton and quantified in Shulchan Aruch (536:1, 537:16 and 538:1) called “Mechaven Malachto laMoed.”  This means directing his work to take place on Chol HaMoed.”  The issue is an important one to the point that the Maharil (Hilchos Chol HaMoed #4) writes that one who does so is counted among those who denigrate the Moadim (See Pirkei Avos 3:11) and loses his portion in the world to come. REASON FOR IT The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 323) explains the reason behind “Mechaven Malachto laMoed.”  He writes, “Not to perform labor were the days of Chol haMoed established, rather to rejoice before Hashem that is to hear words of Torah etc.” MAJOR CONTROVERSY This issue is a question that many Bnei Torah ask their Rav or Posaik and the responses across the country are very wide-ranging.  Some Rabbonim forbid it entirely based upon the rulings of the Debreciner Rav zt”l (Be’er Moshe Vol. VII #69) and lbc”l Rav Moshe Shternbuch Shlita (Moadim uZmanim Vol. IV #305).  Others permit it based on Rav Moshe Feinstein’s psak that appears in the Chol HaMoed Sefer and others forbid it, based upon this very same ruling of Rav Feinstein zt”l. THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION This question was posed to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, way back in 1980, by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, who were working on their first edition of their Chol HaMoed Sefer at the time. THE RAV MOSHE QUOTE After they had written their sefer, they posed questions to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.  The language of the response of Rav Moshe was shown to Rav Moshe before it went to print. Rav Feinstein zt”l approved the text but made some clarifying additions of his own – which appear below. Rav Feinstein’s additions are in parentheses.  This author’s clarifying additions are in brackets.   In his ruling #18 the Hebrew reads as follows: It is permitted