Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 069

Friday, June 16 2000

• Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Pasul Mezuzah
• pasul mezuzah (was Ta'am and taste)
• Hilula
• Re: Gerus for Marriage
• Re: pasul mezuzah (was Ta'am and taste)
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Mezuzah - ones
• Re: Shavuos Minhag
• Re: Ta'am and taste

>The second is about the meaning of the halachah. Are men and women supposed
>to relate to time differently? What do we learn from the fact that matzah is
>an exception to the rule, but sukkah isn't? What does this say about gender
>roles and the home? What does it say about what kavannah I ought to have
>while sitting in the Succah?

Nice example.

To move from the abstract to the specific, do you or anyone want to discuss
any answers to the excellent questions in the latter paragraph?

-- Eric

What is all the arguing. The halacha is quite clear. Private mezuzahs have
to be checked twice in seven years (I generally check Ellul Erev sheviis -
this year - and ellul erev the fourth year). Public mezuzas and tephilin
worn regularly do NOT have to be checked.

However for one's piece of mind even if the original may get slightly
damaged, is it not worth it to get them checked once in a while?

My tephilin which I recently had checked after about 5 years had
deterioated from mehudar to barely kosher. Even in hermetically sealed
tefilin, the klaf does get influenced by the climatical conditions - heat
waves etc. and of course by the absorbtion of sweat from one's forehead.

Besides which the boxes themselves loose the squareness unless they are
really handled with exceptional care.

Recently several women living in a particular apartment block had one
miscarriage after another. The 'Public' mezuzas in the lobby where found
to be possul!

An interesting side point. My local posek hold that elevators should have
mezuzas and that they should be on the internal door that commutes with
the 'room' itself even though the 'room' is less than 4x4. Why, because
of the doorpost which is like an arch which one passes through in a city
and thus requires a mezuzah even though there is no 'room' on either side.

Any comments?

Daniel

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>

On 13 Jun 2000, at 9:47, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> FWIW, RSZA also says that, nowadays (since tefilin are made b'hidur), one
> should not have his tefilin checked without a specific reason.  (Usually, it
> is the opening and closing of the batim that cause the most problems.) The
> same thing applies to mezuzas that are placed securely "inside" doorposts.  

>>At all? What happens to SA YD that says you should have tfillin 
>>checked twice in seven years?

- -- Carl<<
----------------
As an aside R. Z. Gelley pointed out that machine matzos have no problem with 
the flour baking thru completely and therefore there ought not be any issue of 
gebroktz.

The Tzad haShoveh is that a halacha or hanhaga might be predicated upon a 
chshash in metzius.  If the metzius changes, this would imply a change to any 
hanhaggah based upon that metzius. Another case is a redux re: melach sdomis and
mayim acharonim in which Tosfos and the Gra disagree on the implicaitons of 
Shinuyi hateva. 

W/O putting words into RSZA's mouth, it might be that he considered the SA to be
dealing with the typical battim of his time and that the battim have changed and
therefore require less frequent bedikkos.  

I wasn't there when RSZA said this.  I wonder if perhaps he said that we really 
NEED not check batim as frequently because of more hiddur today... but implying 
that we still follow the SA's prescription despite this change in metzius?

Rich Wolpoe.

 

Can someone give me an explanation why the word hilula,  used in the
Gemara for a wedding,  is used for the yahrtzeit of a tzadik?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I'm reopening a discussion from volume 4 (check this subject line in the
archives) because I now have more information.

I found the following summary on R' Rivlin and Josh Rapps' email list of
summaries of divrei Torah from RYBS. For Shavu'os they sent the following.
It would appear that my problems relating the Rambam to the halachah pesukah
were because I lacked a chakira -- thereby causing confusion between declaring
that someone is not a geir tzedek and saying that the person isn't a geir
at all.

-mi

: Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Rus V'Inyanei Gayrus
: (Shiur date: 5/24/68. Tape #5285)

...

: The Ramban says (Issurei Biah 13:14) that we should not think that Shimshon
: and Shlomo married non-Jewish women. The Rambam explains (Sod Hadavar Kach Hu)
: it in terms of a major revelation, a strange terminology for the Rambam. When
: the prospective convert comes we must investigate his motives carefully. If
: he has no ulterior motives, we explain to him the difficulties of keeping
: the Torah and Mitzvos. If after all the attempts to dissuade him he still
: wants to convert we accept him, as it says that Naomi realized that Ruth was
: determined to convert, so she refrained from further attempts to dissuade her.

: The Rambam defines a Ger Tzedek as one who accepts Judaism out of love
: of Judaism and Hashem while a regular Ger, like Gerei Dovid V'Shlomo and
: Mordechai and Esther, converts out of fear or because of marriage, are
: considered [plain] converts. If both Geirei Tzedek and Geirei Dovid and
: Shlomo are considered converts, what is the difference between them? The
: Rambam says that Beis Din Hagadol suspected them (non-geirei tzedek types)
: yet they did not chase them away (Lo Dochin) but neither did they welcome them
: (Lo Mkarvan). Despite the fact that the Beis Din Hagadol refused to convert
: them, there still were many converts who converted for many reasons at the
: time of Dovid and Shlomo. They were not considered Geirei Tzedek but were
: still considered converts. Even though the wives of Shlomo are referred to
: as Nashim Nochriyos, they were still converts but were not considered Geirei
: Tzedek. Even though they are called Nochriyos they were still considered
: converts. Why does the Navi refer to them as Nachriyos?

: The Rambam says that a convert who is circumcised and had Tvila who returns
: to worship idolatry is considered like a Jew who worships idolatry whose
: Kiddushin is still valid. From the Rambam we see that the difference between
: Gairei Tzedek and regular converts (as in the time of Dovid and Shlomo)
: is represented by their acceptance of Mitzvos. If they came to Judaism with
: ulterior motives their Kdushas Yisrael is incomplete. That is why the Rambam
: split up the laws od Geirei Tzedek and those of Dovid and Shlomo and combines
: the converts of Dovid and Shlomo with the converts that we must observe and
: investigate to ascertain their actions. Even though they are circumcised
: and underwent Tvila but did so before 3 Hedyotos (non-experts in Jewish
: law), such converts are lacking in Kabbalas Hamitzvos, hence they require
: observation. And if they act inappropriately, then they do not attain the
: status of full Kdushas Yisrael, and we limit their interaction with the Jewish
: community via restricting their marriage into the Jewish community at large.

: From the Rambam we derive that there are 2 halachos in Geirus. 1) a convert
: created through Milah and Tvila 2) a convert created through Milah, Tvila
: and Kabbalas Hamitzvos. From the Rambam it appears that Lchatchila, according
: to the fullest intent of the law, a convert who is lacking a valid Kabbalas
: Hamitzvos and Kdushas Yisrael cannot marry a Jew. He has to keep all the
: Mitzvos and we have to return his lost items, however he is lacking as far as
: Yichus is concerned. A convert requires Milah, Tvila and Korban. The Rambam
: says that a convert requires Korban because until he brings his Korban he
: is lacking Kdushas Yisrael, he is Mchusar Kapporah, and cannot enter the
: Mikdash. The Kdushas Yisrael is lacking. The Rambam (Mchusrei Kapporah 1:2)
: says that a convert that had Milah and Tvila but did not bring Korban is
: prevented from eating Kodshim because until he brings his Korban he is not the
: same as the rest of Bnay Yisrael. Just like you require full Kdushas Yisrael
: for Achilas Kodshim which is attained through bringing his Korban to complete
: his conversion, so to full Kdushas Yisrael is required for marriage into
: the Jewish community. If that is the case how do we accept converts today
: when there is no Korban? How can a Ger marry into the community today? So
: the Gemara answers that there is a special Gzeiras Hakasuv to allow it.

: From the Rambam it would appear that Lchatchila one should not allow such
: incomplete converts to marry into the community. The Rambam says that the
: converts in the time of Shimshon and Dovid and Shlomo gave the impression
: that they were Geirei Tzedek. Only afterwards did they reveal their true
: intentions. According to the Rambam these converts did not have full Kdushas
: Yisrael because they were lacking in Hischayvus Bmitzvos. The Rambam says
: that since they had Milah and Tvila they are no longer non-Jews. Once the
: women converted, even though they were not Geirei Tzedek, Shimshon and
: Shlomo married them as they were subject to Kdushin at that point, even
: though according to the Rambam Lchatchila they should not have been allowed
: to marry into the Jewish community.

: What is the status of a convert who converts for marriage or financial
: reasons and later keeps all the Mitzvos correctly and for the proper reasons,
: what is his status? Is he a Ger Tzedek or a plain Ger with an incomplete
: Kabbalas Hamitzvos? The Rav said that when he starts to keep the Mitzvos for
: the appropriate reasons he creates the full Kdushas Yisrael at that time,
: even though at the time of his conversion he was lacking in Kdushas Yisrael,
: Kdushas Yisrael that can only come together with the appropriate keeping of
: Mitzvos. The moment he starts to keep the Mitzvos correctly he consummates
: the Kdushas Yisrael and becomes a Ger Tzedek. It makes no difference
: when he starts to keep Mitzvos correctly, even though at the time of the
: conversion he was lacking. The conversion applies even to someone who is
: lacking Kabbalas Hamitzvos and remains as such until he acts appropriately
: and graduates to the status of Ger Tzedek. Even though Shlomo's wives later
: revealed themselves as idolatrous they retained the status of Geirim. Even
: if the convert returned to his idolatrous ways he has the same status as a
: Jewish Mumar who is still considered a Jew.

From Micha Berger:
:> FWIW, RSZA also says that, nowadays (since tefilin are made b'hidur), one
:> should not have his tefilin checked without a specific reason. ...

:             Was this a vort that's floating around, or a quote from a seifer?
: If the latter, what's the mar'eh makom?

It's in Halichos Shlomo (I don't have the sefer with me now, but it's near
the end of the perek dealing with tefilin...perek daled, IIRC)

KT
Aryeh		

In a message dated 6/15/00 11:27:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> The obligation to eat meat on Yom Tov is only a chumra from the Rambam.  The 
> Shulchan Aruch paskens (and pashtus in the gemara is) that drinking wine is 
> a chiyuv.  While I'm normally machmir for the Rambam, on Shavuos I'm not 
> because my mother-in-law makes a milchig meal.

Please see Arichus on this issue in the Darkei Tshuva Y"D 89 Ois 19 discusses 
the famous Shagas Arye on this issue.



In a message dated 6/15/00 12:00:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> iirc this is from the zohar which is makpid one hour from meat to milk AND 
> vice versa so that in effect the 2 are never consumed together during the
> same hour.

Yes! according to the Zohar in MIshpotim is brought also in the B"Y on the 
Tur O"C 173, and the Shach in Y"D 89, the two should not be eaten in the same 
meal (no matter how lomg the wait) or in the same hour.




In a message dated 6/15/00 6:00:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

>  > See KS"A 46:11 
>  
>  As I understand the Kitzur, he is saying that so long as I do not eat 
>  hard cheese, I am allowed to eat meat immediately "in another 
>  meal" so long as my hands and mouth are cleaned. Lichora, he's 
>  saying you should bentch, which would go against the Rema I 
>  cited yesterday and against the Magen Avraham, the Rivash and 
>  the Eliyahu Raba (see below. Caveat: I have not seen any of the 
>  latter three inside).

The KS"A is Machmir more then the M"A in O"C 494 (Al Asar), and the Rivash, 
WRT E"R the D"T says is Machmir.

>  and Misgeres Hashulchan Ois 7.  (also according to the
>  > Shalo in Miseches Shvuois one should wait an hour).
>  
>  I have neither the Misgeres haShulchan, nor the Shlo. I gather that 
>  both say you should wait an hour?

The Misgeres points out that they may not be eaten in the same meal, and 
brings the sources as Zohar (brought in) B"Y (on the Tur) 173, Pri Mgodim in 
Y"D Simon 89 (see in both M"Z and S"D).  The Shaloh writes first one should 
have the milchig meal bentch wait hour and have fleishig meal.

>  
>  Your cite to the Kitzur sent me to my Shearim M'Tzuyanim 
>  b'Halacha, which raises a couple of interesting points in s"k 6 
>  there. He brings a Magen Avraham (494:6 - I assume YD), who 
>  says that you can eat meat after "stam gvina" without bentching. 
>  He then brings a Darchei Tshuva (YD 89:14) who says that one 
>  must be mafsik for bentching after all cheeses.

The D"T brings later in OIs 19 from the Pri Mgodim Y"D 89 M"Z 3  that even 
for soft cheeses some are Machmir.

> The Shearim 
>  M'tzuyanim then brings the Rivash (384), who says that if cheese 
>  and meat have the same bracha, one need not bentch in between 
>  them.

As he holds Kinuach Vhadacha is enough, (there is also a misquote here), more 
later.

> The Shearim M'tzuyanim says that the Rivash is brought by 
>  the Darchei Tshuva himself in YD 206:1,

AFAIK there is no D"T on Y"D 206, (and there would be no obvious conection to 
this issue in that Simon anyway), however the quote of the Rivash is in the 
*SHA'AREI* Tshuva, on *O"C* 206:1, (so at the most it is Gavra aGavra Karomis 
as they are by different authors).

> and therefore he does not 
>  understand the Darchei Tshuva in YD 89,

The Rivash says the Bracha on milk/product can Patur also meat/product since 
they cannot be eaten together, and one need not make a new Bracha (Rishona) 
for the meat Tavshil, he is not discussing an after Bracha as he clearly 
holds one can eat them in the same meal (meat after milk) thru Kinuach 
Vhadacha, hence the D"T which is discussing the Mogein Avraham (and brings 
others who claim that there is a To'us Hadfus in the M"A) is interested in 
bringing the sources that are Machmir (as he doesn't bring the Ramah in Y"D 
89 that makes distinction between hard and soft cheeses).
 

>  He then suggests that even according to those 
>  who would hold that you do need to bentch in between, this may 
>  not be the case if what's being discussed is a cheese tavshil and a 
>  meat tavshil, for which he cites Eliyahu Rabba 173:8.

This is also quoted in the above mentioned D"T, however when loking into 
Poskim cheese cake and/or blintzes IMHO would not be considered "Tavshil".

Just to add, LAN"D the Zohar it would seem that there is no difference 
between milk and cheese and hence hard and soft cheese, (Vtzorich Iyun on the 
M"M in the Ramoh on Y"D).




In a message dated 6/15/00 11:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>   The way I described it does not affect her.  I gave my boys the option
>  of doing it this way or sticking with the cake for kvias
>  seudah+cheesecake,  then a regular meat seuda later on,  and they split
>  on it.

A common problem with this approach is the amount eaten may be considered 
Kvias Seuda with all it's ramifications.  


Gut Shabbos, V'Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:11:02 EDT Yzkd@aol.com writes:
: A common problem with this approach is the amount eaten may be considered
: Kvias Seuda with all it's ramifications.

	I'm not sure which approach you mean as the problematic one, but the
issue of kiddush bemokom se'udah balancing against kvius seudah on pas
haba'ah bekisnin, is a serious, if under-recognized one, unless you always
eat the seudah right afterwards or, failing that, eat lukshen kugel for
bemokom seudah.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 6/16/00 11:55:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>   I'm not sure which approach you mean as the problematic one,  but ...

I was Bikar referring to amount eaten that can require Birchas Hamozon.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 07:31:35PM +0000, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: That is an issue of issurim - is a ma'aseh aveira b'ones considered as if
: no action was done, or is at a ma'aseh aveira with a ptur. Either way you
: acted and now want to reverse the course.

If someone is told to eat traif or they'd be killed, they're considered
anusim, no?

In which case, piku'ach nefesh is an example of oneis -- by melachos Shabbos
as well. If so, wouldn't the machlokes you're discussing be akin to the
whole inyan of hutrah vs dechuyah? That too us a ma'aseh avreia bi'oneis.

Or, is Shabbos considered a special case because the piku'ach nefesh docheh
Shabbos is phrased in terms of ability to keep future Shabbosos as opposed to
"vichai bahem".

-mi

In a message dated 6/16/00 11:55:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I'm not sure which approach you mean as the problematic one, but the issue of
> kiddush bemokom se'udah balancing against kvius seudah on pas haba'ah
> bekisnin, is a serious, if under-recognized one, unless you always eat the
> seudah right afterwards or, failing that, eat lukshen kugel for bemokom
> seudah.

I do not understand ho regular cheesecake has anywhere near the mezonos
for kevius seudah, and I think there is a question if lokshen kugel counts
as pas ha'ba b'kisanin.

From one who ate only milchig the first day of Shavuos,

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I think there could be another example in Tosefos on Kesuvos 74b.

The mishnah (72b, a/k/a 7:7) compares two kinds of kidushin al t'nai --
al minas she'ien aleha nedarim, vs. she'ein ba mumim. The gemara quotes a
b'raisa distinguishing between a woman had a neider but was matir it before
the husband found out, and a woman who was a ba'alas mum who went to a doctor
before he learned ot it. The former ba'alas neder is still married. The
gemara explains that the neder is removed limafrei'a, so it turns out she
wasn't under a neder at the time. The doctor only cures mikan ulhaba -- so
at the time of the t'nai she was a ba'alas mum, and the kedushin aren't chal.

All this makes sense. Yet, the ba'alei Tosafos seem to recast the gemara
into a discussion of how the husband experiences the former neder vs how he
experiences the former mum. They seem to argue that he has an EA connected
the would-be bride to the mum, whereas he wouldn't for a neider!

(Daf addicts: how did you understand this Tosafos?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Jun-00: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 22b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]