Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 054

Monday, December 8 2003

• Re: non-kosher tashmishei mitzvah
• Re: non-kosher tashmishei mitzvah
• Re: Seeing each other & Pictures before the Wedding
• End Slice of Challah
• Listerine Pocket Pack
• definition of liquid
• Must be moicheh
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Must be moicheh
• Re: Must be moicheh
• Re: Pictures Before Wedding (was: Must be moicheh)
• Re: choson and kallah not sseing each other for the week before the wedding
• Re: Standing/Sitting for the chupa
• Torah way of teaching 'the facts of life'
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: definition of liquid
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: Halachic definition of liquid
• Re: End Slice of Challah
• Re: Berachos 47a
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim

"E.M. Shtern" <edward_shtern@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Someone expressed puzzlement to me regarding the fact that the techeles
> used for taleisim comes from a non-kosher animal (although this itself is
> unclear - see Encyclopedia Talmudis for some opinions that the Chilazon is
> plant life)...

The same type of question can be asked about the kohen gadol wearing
shatnez.

The article below is from the Torah U Mada journal. It is not really
philosophical but is well documented.
<http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/Mutar_Beficha.pdf>

Shabbat Shalom

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:46:34PM +0000, Saul Guberman wrote:
:> Someone expressed puzzlement to me regarding the fact that the techeles
:> used for taleisim comes from a non-kosher animal (although this itself is
:> unclear - see Encyclopedia Talmudis for some opinions that the Chilazon is
:> plant life)...

: The same type of question can be asked about the kohen gadol wearing
: shatnez.

Not really. In fact, perhaps the issur of shaatnez is because it's
reserved for the kohein gadol. Which would explain the connection to
the avodah of Kayin (flax) and Hevel (wool).

Here the question is one of bringing a tamei species into the BHM. The
closer parallel would be tola'as shani. Or argaman, which we seem to
have no problem associating with murex lekhol hadei'os.

This notion that the chilazon being a plant is intriguing. What's the
nartic and dam of a plant?

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

> And taking pictures would put a tirchah on guests and decrease
> the simcha of the chattan and kallah, then there is no reason not to
> permit them to take pictures before the wedding - it should even be
> encouraged.

AFAIK, there is no problem with having the pictures taken before the
wedding. I know that R' Yaakov Weinberg (NIRC) and R' Yaakov Kulefsky
(NIRC) both encouraged doing this (when they were asked) so as to minimize
the tircha to the guests. I do not know about the issue of them touching
before the wedding.

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh

I have heard and seen many who have the practice of not eating the end
slice of a challah. I don't remember the reason or source for this. Does
anyone else?

Thanks
Akiva Miller

My son asked Rabbi Belsky this Friday night and was told that it is
his opinion that one should make a beracha on Listerine Pocket packs,
that the reason for using it is the "fresh taste".

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In giving a shiur on Kol Habasar I used the sefer "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch:
Hilchos Ta'aruvos" which I dug up from my smicha days. In chapter 1,
siman one, he goes into the difference b/w lach and yavesh. Although
his basic definition of liquid is things that are homogenously mixed
together, i.e. it becomes soluble in the other mixture. He says, if
kosher gravy mixes with unkosher gravy, it's a mixture of liquid and
liquid, b/c it's totally homogenous and one can't separate them (short
of bringing out one's chemistry set).

However he says that if we have a cup of kosher gravy and a cup of
non-kosher gravy and we forget which one is which, this would be
considered ta'aruvos yavesh b'yavesh.

Also, he rules that if small things that are solid like seeds get mixed
up, he rules that this remains solid and not liquid since each seed,
although being tiny, is still its own unit and is not totally homogenious
(b'shem Pri M'gadim SD YD 109:1). However if the mixture is between flour
or items ground up which get mixed up, there's a machlokes if this is
yavesh (Shach yet Chochmas Adam says that we can say b'shaas hadchak
that this is yavesh b'yavesh...)

Elly Krimsky

Regarding those types of photographs before the wedding...it seems
that someone misunderstood what those rabbis said. Kallah b'lo bracha
(and/or Kesuva) asura lbaala K'nida!! That is assur midina.

Not seeing each other is a "preventive measure" - type minhag, with
its roots apparently in the din of Tava l'hinase (must wait 7 nkiim
after proposing the nissuin - "dam chimud"). It could be that last
minute disagreements and fights between the chasan and kallah are so
commonplace before the wedding, that one side may emotionally "call off"
the wedding, and then quickly reconcile, this effectively being a new
"tviah" necessitating another seven nki'im. While not an early documented
minhag, I am not aware that a minhag of prishus like this could or should
be called a minhag taus. There are probably other reasons too. Incidently,
based on this explanation, phone calls would be just as problematic.

It could be that some rabbis believe that when something is not a dina
d'gmara or an early documented minhag, it may not be wise to insist
on adherence to such minhagim of prishus for fear that it is simply
"too much". These rabbanim understand their followers and try to avoid
situations of "kol hamosif go'reah."

I am not aware what goyim do, but even if they have a similar practice
it would not be chukos hagoyim since we are not doing it for the same
reason that they do.

It is commendable to think about the tircha of the guests; it is a real
problem that more people do not seem to factor that in. However, perhaps
the solution is less pictures, not the disregard of halacha or minhag.

Avraham

PS Mazal Tov

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Anyone have any ideas why Rachel didn't just bury the trafim in some
> out-of-the-way place along their trip rather than keeping them .....

the Even Ezrah Breishis 31:19 wants to dispute rashi's resaon for Rochel 
taking the Trafim, BECAUSE of your question....ayen shom

Gut Voch
Simcha G

Avraham -
> Regarding those types of photographs before the wedding...it seems that 
> someone misunderstood what those rabbis said. Kallah b'lo bracha (and/or 
> Kesuva) asura lbaala K'nida!! That is assur midina.

The Rabbi with whom I am going over Hilchot Niddah told me explicitly
that Rav Lichtenstein (who was his messader kiddushin) was matir
pictures before the chuppah, with the chattan and kallah touching. No
misunderstanding. (And they have the pictures to prove it).

I have gotten a number of replies to my question saying that the minhag
of not seeing each other is related to dam chimud - this makes sense
m'svara, but does anyone have any actual sources saying that the minhag
is based on this? It is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (in the
section dealing with dam chimud, or in any other section if I am not
mistaken). So where IS it mentioned?

The only places I have seen it mentioned in writing is in Rav Aryeh
Kaplan's "Made in Heaven" and in Rav Binyomin Forst's Halachos of Niddah
(Artscroll), both of whom say that although it is not mentioned in any
early sources at all, it is still a nice thing to do and can be helpful
to avoid stress of the upcoming wedding. But neither point to any sources
(other than to say that no early ones exist). SOURCES ANYONE?

 > I am not aware what goyim do, but even if they have a similar
 > practice it would not be chukos hagoyim since we are not doing it
 > for the same reason that they do.

The reason I heard that it may be chukot hagoyim is that hundreds of
years ago when goyim would have arranged marriages (for political or
financial reasons) they would keep the bride and groom apart until the
actual wedding (for fear that when they saw each other they would not want
to marry and thereby ruin the political or financial gain sought after by
the parents). Chukot Hagoyim - not necessarily because of what goyim do
nowadays, but because the practice of goyim may have been what prompted
Jews to adopt it. This fits in with there being no early sources for the
minhag. If indeed the minhag is based on tava l'hinaseh and dam chimud,
then why isnt it mentioned in ANY early sources?

Yaakov

From: "Ya'akov Ellis" <jellis@seas.upenn.edu>
...
> I have gotten a number of replies to my question saying that the
> minhag of not seeing each other is related to dam chimud - this makes
> sense m'svara, but does anyone have any actual sources saying that the
> minhag is based on this? It is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (in
> the section dealing with dam chimud, or in any other section if I am
> not mistaken). So where IS it mentioned?

> The only places I have seen it mentioned in writing is in Rav Aryeh
> Kaplan's "Made in Heaven" and in Rav Binyomin Forst's Halachos of
> Niddah (Artscroll), both of whom say that although it is not mentioned
> in any early sources at all, it is still a nice thing to do and can be
> helpful to avoid stress of the upcoming wedding. But neither point to
> any sources (other than to say that no early ones exist). SOURCES ANYONE?

I do not understand.

Regarding real dinim that have Talmudic sources (asura lbaala k'nida), you
seem to believe that we can rely on non-written quotes from contemporary
people to act to the contrary, while for a minhag, which by its very
definition might not be rooted in texts, we must find texts for support?

Avraham wrote:
> Regarding those types of photographs before the wedding...it seems
> that someone misunderstood what those rabbis said. Kallah b'lo bracha
> (and/or Kesuva) asura lbaala K'nida!! That is assur midina.

You are correct. That is why the pictures must be done BEFORE kiddushin,
so that the woman is not yet a kallah. I assumed that the rabbis were
not recommending that right after kiddushin they stop the whole wedding,
do pictures, and then continue with the sheva berachos and yichud.
Rather, they were talking about doing the pictures before the couple
are chassan and kallah.

> It could be that some rabbis believe that when something is not a dina
> d'gmara or an early documented minhag, it may not be wise to insist
> on adherence to such minhagim of prishus for fear that it is simply
> "too much". These rabbanim understand their followers and try to avoid
> situations of "kol hamosif go'reah."

My guess is that this minhag is not part of the mesorah of these rabbanim
and they find no need to adopt minhagim of unknown origin.

Gil Student

Rav Ahron Soloveichik z'l quoted an Avnei Nezer as saying that the
reason that Chasidim don't make tenaim at the choson tish is because
of a fear of bringing about dam chimud, which he thought was not a real
chashash.Rabbi Drillman z'l once said that Rabbeinu Kreskas on Kesuvos(
1st perek I think) also mentions this chasash. I think that this is also
the reason for the choson and kalah not seeing each other for the week
before the wedding.I have heard that R. Ahron personally saw his kallah
during the week before his wedding, but I never tried to verify it.

RCS wrote:
> I have always thought that sitting for the chupa (as is done in the old
> country) was more m'chubad than standing around (as is done here). When
> Adina and I got married here, we had someone ask everyone to sit down
> for the chupa (and have the pictures to prove it). So I had a little
> surprise last night....

The Olde Country you are talking about must be the US, since in the
country previously known as the Olde Country (which really wasn't one
country until ... two years from now, when the EU HM likes so much ;-)
will have included much of Eastern Europe), nobody even heard of sitting
at a 'huppah, save for when discussing the Americans.

Just an observation.

Re the recent discussion of this in Areivim -

An excellent recent sefer called 'Zeria ubinyan bechinuch' (Feldheim
5756) (an English translation subsequently appeared) based on talks of
Rav Shlomo Wolbe shlit"a, has some passages about the matter.

Here are some thoughts from it ([imperfect] translation / adaptation mine)
(pages 49-50) -

We will add a number of things with regard to the stage of maturing,
around the age of thirteen. Re 'bar mitzvoh' there is no need to
talk. That everyone knows how to conduct very nicely. However, with
regard to physical and emotional maturity, one must speak.

If the relationship between the parents and children is a heartfelt one,
and the parents can speak to the children without being embarassed,
then they must speak to them and prepare for them for maturity. Mother
must prepare her daughter reaching twelve years of age and speak to her
regarding forthcoming manifestations of expected maturity. If the girl
will reach maturity without any preparation, and will be shocked at the
first such episode, she is liable to receive a blow that is hard to heal
from, at times even until her marriage.

The boys too must be prepared and taught what 'mikreh layla' is, so they
should not be shocked. There there is a place for the father to expand
and explain that the zera is a holy power through which they themselves
can become fathers in the future.

At a later stage, one must be more specific. The Chofetz Chaim used to
speak to his sons when they reached the age of fifteen and explain to
them at one time all connected to maturity. Conduct, issur of hotzaas
zera livatoloh, etc. The youngster must hear once, in detail, all the
halochos connected to this inyan.

Mordechai

On 5 Dec 2003 at 18:10, Micha Berger wrote:
> 3- Also, hacing something with which to feed your animals is hana'ah.
> The gemara assumes this WRT terumah.

In which case the problem with feeding the dog issurei Basar b'Chalav,
which is also issurei hana'a ought to be the same problem as feeding
the dog chametz b'Pesach.

-- Carl

Feeding dogfood/catfood to pets usually is not a BbH problem on 2 counts:
(tho I have no pets myself)

There is an issur hana'a only if BbH are cooked together and the meat
is from a kosher animal (as opposed to fowl, or even a deer). See
for instance OH 87 seif 1 and 3, and Aruch Hashulchan OH 87 8-9. So
chicken/turkey+milk even cooked together (bishul) is not asur beHanna,
and certainly if it is mixed but not cooked together it is allowed
to give to pets. All this is if the meat is kasher and not a from a
treif animal. So food from the house , even meat and milk if not cooked
together, but only mixed is fine for pets.


IIFC but I could not find a reference ,if the meat is a neveila, as
non-shechted meat is, there is also no issur hanaa even if cooked with
milk of a kosher animal. So bought petfood would nearly never be kosher
meat, even if the pet food were cooked in the factory. But this needs
checking out, this is from memory and I did not see neveila explicitely
excluded in OH 87.

Elly Krimsky wrote:
>In giving a shiur on Kol Habasar I used the sefer "Kitzur
>Shulchan Aruch: Hilchos Ta'aruvos" which I dug up from my
>smicha days. In chapter 1, siman one, he goes into the
>difference b/w lach and yavesh...

I was thinking along these lines. Also, there is a definition of
solid and liquid for the halachos of bishul on Shabbos (big machlokes
acharonim). But since for the purposes of ta'arovos even flour is
considered a "liquid", I highly doubt that this definition is one for
kol ha-Torah kulah. Would anyone really suggest that eating flour should
have a shiur of revi'is rather than kezayis?

I would, however, suggest that the definition of solid vs. liquid should
be the same for all issues of shiurim. So a something that is mitztaref
with other liquids for a berachah acharonah should also be mitztaref
for a shiur of revi'is.

Gil Student

I wrote:
>> Yes. According to Rambam, the meat of a neveilah wouldn't come under the
>> prohibition of Bb'H, as even then ein issur 'hal 'al issur.

Reb Akiva Atwood wrote:
> But "ein issur 'hal 'al issur" would only apply if a Jew ate it --
> that wouldn't help with a dog.

AFAIR(emember), the issue was that some dog food falls under the
prohibition of Bb'H, because it contains milk and meat products and
was subsequently cooked, either for preservation purposes, or simply to
make sure that Fifi gets the best. Now if so, it could be prohibited to
benefit from the mixture.

> Also, AIUI from a LOR, the issur of Bv'H is davka cooking -- just putting
> a meat and dairy component together (but not cooking them together)
> wouldn't be a problem when feeding a dog.

See above. As RCS said:
<<Why? If it's YOUR dog and your responsibility for feeding him, wouldn't
that be an additional type of hana'a beyond the general issur of Bb"H
on you?>>

Halakhicly, you benefit because you don't need to go out and buy other,
kosher dog food.

So, we asked whether the dog food, which is made from unritually
slaughtered meat, does indeed become assur behanaah when being cooked
with milk, which why I cited the Pri Megadim citing the Rambam.

RCS:
<<I think the d'oraysa chiyuv of Bb"h is cooking - but d'Rabbanan it's
any mixing. Whether that would include mixing for a dog (as opposed to
mixing for people) is a separate issue.>>

But this doesn't result in an issur hanaah. Thus, I suggest that the
mixture is at least pasturized.

RAF: [that's me - arie]
: Yes. According to Rambam, the meat of a neveilah wouldn't come under the 
: prohibition of Bb'H, as even then ein issur 'hal 'al issur.

RMB commented:
<<I was referring to the lema'aseh. The impression I was left after the
AhS is that we (Ashkenazim at least) do not hold like the Rambam.>>

Correct. Yet, one can argue about the theory. One can also suggest that
with many frum families owning klovim, and the concommitant difficulty
in feeding those pooches, we ought to see whether indeed Rambam is
unconvincing.

RMB:
<<I also do not understand the Rambam's "nequdah nifla'ah". (See his
peirush on Kerisus 3:4). He uses R' Avohu to explain why we invoke ein
issur chal al issur even though this is an issur mosif (hana'ah is added
atop achilah). R' Avohu says that achilah is a min hana'ah. However,
one is an issur of hana'ah on one mkind of hana'ah alone, so how does
that avoid the question of hosafah.>>

Rambam disagrees with you interpretation. The main kind of hanaah WRT food
is eating it, hence the addition of a complete issur hanaah to something
which is anyway prohibited in consumption isn't significant enough to
consider the additional issur mossif. Of course, you could accept the line
of reasoning of most posqim and say that here, Rambam is unconvincing.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

Micha Berger wrote:
>In any case, your original defnition doesn't help. Both yoghurt (even
>"custard style" and "liquigel"toothpast drip. However, the rate is
>measurable in chalaqim per drop, whereas the 7 mashkim drip in
>rates of drops per cheileq.

I don't remember if I posted this before.

The halacha as decided in the Shulchan Aruch and Ramah (OC 174:2)
is that the brachot said before and after wine suffices for all other
liquids drunk during that meal.

I discussed this halacha in a recent article in Jewish Action.

http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5763/5763winter/LEGAL-EA.PDF

the question is how to define other liquids.
In a footnote I state the following:
Other liquids that are exempted probably include soups, and even
soups that may require an ha'adama such as vegetable soups. (Rav Chaim
Kanievsky, quoted in Tzohar, [Rav Elyakim Dvorkes, editor] volume 5
(5759), page 117-118). The K'tzot Ha'Shulchan (Badei Hashulchan 53:28)
questions whether ha'adama soups are covered by the hagafen because
maybe their bracha indicates they are halachikally vegetables and not
drinks. Included also are liquidy foods such as "leben" or "gil", and
according to Rav Elyashiv even solidified liquid like ice cream and
shamenet (Mandelbaum, p. 100).

In a message dated 12/6/03 11:25:33 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> I have heard and seen many who have the practice of not eating the end
> slice of a challah. I don't remember the reason or source for this. Does
> anyone else?

Enclosed find from the Sefer "Shmiras Haguf vHanefesh" regarding this issue.  
Please point to: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/challahEnd.pdf>

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/3/03 3:25:59 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> My suggestion: the "al yizrok beracha mipiv" refers to a fourth kind
> of improper amen,

See Biurei HAGRA on O"C 5:1 he learns that it means to have Kavana.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

>Anyone have any ideas why Rachel didn't just bury the trafim

There are a number of opinions as to what the trafim were.

Assuming they were metal and that they were avodah zarah that had to be
destroyed it would have required melting them or grinding them.

There is another opinion that it was a preserved human body of some sort
(see medrash tanchuma) presumably this would have to be buried properly.
Which would not been done easily covertly.

Then there are the reasons why Rachel took the trafim.

If the reason was as Rash"i says to remove her father from Avodah Zarah
your question stands. However if you can imagine Lavan tracking Yaakov's
travel and looking for the Avodah Zarah any sign of a burial would have
aroused his suspicion and probably be found.

Another reason is that Rachel was afraid that the trafim would help Lavan
track Yaakov and his family. I suppose that according to this reason
there might have been some ability for Lavan to find the trafim if they
were only buried the same way that the trafim would help him find Yaakov.

Rabbi Avraham Korman in his sefer Havos vHashevatim suggests based on
archeological evidence that the trafim were used to indicate who was the
sole inheritor of a person. He suggests that Rachel's stealing the trafim
follows the statement that Lavan has used up all of our money indicates
that Rachel wanted to get what was due to her from Lavan's estate.
This was only possible if she had the trafim after Lavan died therefore
she could not get rid of them.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

On 7 Dec 2003 at 14:29, Ezriel Krumbein wrote:
>> Anyone have any ideas why Rachel didn't just bury the trafim

[snip]

> Then there are the reasons why Rachel took the trafim.

> If the reason was as Rash"i says to remove her father from Avodah
> Zarah your question stands. However if you can imagine Lavan tracking
> Yaakov's travel and looking for the Avodah Zarah any sign of a burial
> would have aroused his suspicion and probably be found.

But you're assuming that there was one narrow road, and that the only 
place she could bury them would have been alongside that road. Surely 
she could have moved further away. 

> Another reason is that Rachel was afraid that the trafim would help
> Lavan track Yaakov and his family. I suppose that according to this
> reason there might have been some ability for Lavan to find the trafim
> if they were only buried the same way that the trafim would help him
> find Yaakov.

Wouldn't it be assur for a Jew to believe that? (Without getting into 
the entire issue of whether the Avos - and the Imahos kept kol 
ha'Torah kula before Matan Torah and if so, whether that included 
while they were in chu"l). 

> Rabbi Avraham Korman in his sefer Havos vHashevatim suggests based on
> archeological evidence that the trafim were used to indicate who was
> the sole inheritor of a person. He suggests that Rachel's stealing the
> trafim follows the statement that Lavan has used up all of our money
> indicates that Rachel wanted to get what was due to her from Lavan's
> estate. This was only possible if she had the trafim after Lavan died
> therefore she could not get rid of them.

This makes sense - but in that case, why didn't she tell Yaakov, who 
would have had rights to the inheritance anyway?

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]