Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 056

Thursday, December 11 2003

• Standing/Sitting for the Chupa
• Re Must be moicheh
• Re: End Slice of Challah
• Re: Berachos 47a
• Re: End Slice of Challah
• Re: Berachos 47a
• Re: Bracha acharona (was "Halachic definition of liquid")
• Re: Differences between Sechel and Da'at
• neveila bchalav
• Chanuka - how common was mehadrins
• Putting away wine/K'sheim shenichnas...
• end piece of challah
• Putting away wine/K'sheim shenichnas...
• Re: Standing/Sitting for the Chupa
• end piece of challah
• RE: End Slice of Challah
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> 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).
> Rav Asher Weiss' shiur last night was on Birkas Chasanim....that everyone
> is supposed to stand for Birkas Chasanim (....
> But I was left with the impression that l'chatchila everyone should
> stand for the Sheva Brachos under the chupa....

As RAF has already mentioned, that is obviously how it was 'in der heim'.
And, AFAIK, that is how it is everywhere [by heimisheh Yidden]
 - except in US of A.

Efshar, the 'sitting' minhag is a result of having chupas inside the
shul - where sitting makes more sense than standing - this introduced
later to the non-shul venues.

Here is Melbourne, AFAIK most of the non-frum [but so-called Os] have
chupas in shul [with everyone - men and women sitting together in the
main shul.]

I was quite surprised when attending chupas of frum families in NY and
Miami seeing the seats prepared for the guests. I was just as surprised
with the 'hole in the roof' trick rather than having the chuppah outside.

SBA

From: "Ya'akov Ellis" <jellis@seas.upenn.edu>
> Does anyone know of any sources that talk about the minhag (ta'ut?) for
> chattan and kallah not to see each other for the week before the
> wedding? I am interested in sources both in favor of the minhag and
> those who think it is not really valid (chukot hagoyim?). What is the
> earliest source for this?

We have this minhag here too [except for chassidim - who don't meet at all
- until the chuppah].

It was obviously so in Oberland. Lubavitch also does so. 
OTOH I hear that Sfardim do not.

> ..anyone know of sources about taking pictures with the chattan
> and kallah together before the wedding? 

Obviously depends on your minhag of meeting the last week or not.

> I was told by someone I know
> pretty well that Rav Lichtenstein permitted pictures before the wedding
> even with chattan and kallah touching, 

Why would that be muttar?
I asked a couple of TC about thisand no one could think of ANY reason
for such a hetter.

OTOH they also hadn't heard of the last week ban either.
[They are both chassidish so it wasn't shayech to them anyway. 
But they were struggling to find a good reason for it.]

> And with regards to touching
> in the pictures (assuming that there is no chupat niddah) there are
> no niddah problems and we basically have a situation of pitto be'salo
> (they are getting married in a couple of hours) so no reason to prohibit
> touching. Does this sound familiar to people?

No. Never heard of this.
Has anyone else?

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il>
> 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.

I did a bit if a survey here amongst rabbonim and TC and found that the
older ones [ie 60+] say a definite 'no' to meeting the last week - with
all giving the reason as 'dam chimud'. [This group includes a visiting
Litvish Rav/RhK - who claims that in his community in EY the Sfardim
are noheg not to meet a whole month before!]

The younger ones, however, dismissed both the minhag and the reasoning
- pointing to the Pischei Tshuva quoting the Tshuvos CS YD 192 - at the
start.

But NO ONE has heard of any hetter for touching prior to chuppah.

SBA

RAM wrote:
> 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?

Two reasons:
* brings about forgetfulness (shikkhah)
* once upon a time people brought their doughs to the baker's oven, and
the edges would touch each other, such that there might have been a piece
of somebody else's 'hallah at the edge of yours, i.e. a kind of theft.

The second reason sounds like apologetics to me, and the first reason,
which was widely reported in the first yeshivah I attended (yeshivah here
means beit midrash, not elementary school), is the reason why I do try
to always take the edge. This should show you what I think of those ideas.

Then again, lately I have heard another reason which is really acceptable
to me and I have lately been looking for the middle more often than not:
that the middle of the 'hallah is simply nicer and thus more appropriate
object of our thoughts for the blessing.

Arie Folger

In a message dated 12/8/2003 10:54:48 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> That's pashtus, but how does it fit into the Gemara's list of amanim?

I know that is what Rashi says, the main reason for writing this is to
bring out that accordingly this part of the Memra is also brought in
S"A L'halacha.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

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

See the end of the marked piece, where he gives support to my minhag ;-)
of eating the ends anyway (we are talking about Shabbos here).

Arie

In a message dated 12/3/2003 3:25:59 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> The Gemara there quotes a beraisa about 3 kinds of amen: "Chatufa",
> "Ketufa", "Yesoma", and ends off with "Ve'al yizrok beracha mipiv."

> Why does the beraisa mix the last statement about beracha with the 3
> about amen?

In "Ve'al yizrok beracha mipiv" in addition to the Poshut Teitch discussed
in another post, there is also 2 Teitchen brought in the Ritva 1) that
he should say it in a way that the end of the Bracha is noticeable 2)
that he should leave space before starting another Bracha. The Ma'i'ree
brings teitch that the one who answers should not say the Bracha along
with the one who is making the Bracha because he will be answering Omein
to his own Bracha. According to all of these Pshotim it has a direct
connection with Omein.

Then the beraisa continues by quoting Ben Azai: Someone who says an amen
yesoma will be punished by having his children yesomim. Someone who says
an amen chatufa, yischatfu yamav, an amen katufa, yiskatfu yamav

(side question 1-what's the difference between yischatfu and yiskatfu;
really what does yischatfu yamav mean. I assume yiskatfu means they'll
be cut short)
According to the Ben Yehoyada Bonuv Yesomim actually means that he wont
have enough Parnosah to feed his children, in the Teitch of Yischatfu
and Yiskatfu he brings 2 possibilities as to which one means that days
will be taken away from him C"V and which means he will have hard times
Al Derech Berev Yomar Mee Yiten Boker.

then, someone who says a long amen will have long years. Here, the
Gemara sticks to talking about amen rather than talking about zorek
beracha mipiv.

Side question 2-Why is the order of improper amanim changed?
According to the above it is in order of severity of punishment, whereas
in the Din it goes in the order of the Omein Chatufa problem with Aleph
(beginning), Ktufa problem with Nun (end), Yesoma problem with the whole
Omein, and also in order of severity Chatufa is not omitting anything
Ktufa is omitting Nun Yesoma the whole thing is Lvatala.

My suggestion: the "al yizrok beracha mipiv" refers to a fourth kind
of improper amen, the opposite of which is an amen arucha. I'm not sure
what exactly that is, but it seems that the parallelism between the tana
kama and Ben Azzai requires that.
According to the 2nd Psaht in the Ritva by spacing he is leaving enough
time to say a proper Omein.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[R Noach] Witty wrote:
>>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).

>1) In light of penultimate sentence quoted above, the final sentence
>becomes ambiguous: Does the word "Included" mean that al-hagefen
>CERTAINLY covers other semi-solid or smei-soft foods or is there a SAFEk
>as to the correctness of that?

1) sorry for the ambiguity. This entire halacha is quite ambiguous
and the subject of much debate. See the cited article for details. By
included, I meant that according to Mandelbaum, Rav Elyashiv holds that
the al-hagefen CERTAINLY covers those items.

>2) Unless one had really mealy potato kugel (shehakol/boreh nefashos)
>if all you have at kiddush shabbos morning is cake, wine and soda,
>I understand that there will be no boreh nefashos to cover the soda
>becasue of the may-ain shalosh. Is that what you meant to convey?

indeed your understanding is correct.

Noach WItty

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:24:25AM +0200, orotzfat wrote:
: For quite a while, I gazed over at the greener grass of nusach Sephard
: when it came to the berachah of Chonen Hada'at. The triad of Chochmah,
: Binah and Da'at is classic, expounded variously by the mefarshim, and
: finds its "definitive" explication in Tanya. What are we to do with
: De'ah Bina v'Haskel?

...
: Both the word HASKEL and DEAH are unusual forms of their respective roots,
: and the verses I claim they evoke are well-know to practicing Jews with
: a basic Jewish education.

As I wrote, I don't think they're notably odd. While Nusach Sefard
and Sefarad refer to three kishronos, Nusach Ashkenaz refers to the
products of those kishronos. One asks for ability, the other asks for
help acheiving results. It's not merely a strange turn of phrase that
could have been stated more simply, it's the only way to say what we're
trying to say.

Your derashah is prettier than my peshat (once we figure out "binah"),
but the peshat I gave allows one to tap into the nimshal the Gra gives
for Mishlei 25:16, and the warning in the mishnah that one who would add
devash to the qetores would be unable to stand from the rei'ach.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

RDB
>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.

You mean, of course, SA YD and not OH. See Mateh Yehonoson there
regarding neveila.

Shlomo Goldstein

One common way to start a drasha about Chanuka is to point out how unusual
this halacha is, that from the very beginning, we were given the option of
performing it on several levels. Then we note that it is unheard of, that
anyone would do it in either of the two lower levels. On the contrary,
except for various difficult circumstances, everyone lights according
to the "mehadrin min hamehadrin" procedure.

My question is: Was it always this way, or is it a recent development?

One possibility is that in recent decades and centuries, we have been
blessed with such wealth that lighting a full set of neros has become
very simple and very inexpensive, and that until recent times only
the more dedicated would light on the "hamehadrin" or "mehadrin min
hamehadrin" levels.

Another possibility is that this was *always* a simple and inexpensive
mitzvah, and people have *always* lit this way. If so, we might be looking
at the wrong end of this chicken-egg puzzle. Maybe Chazal did *not* set
up "Ner Ish Ubeiso" and then add two higher levels. Maybe they realized
that people were fully willing and able to light an expanding menorah
each night, and they set up the two levels below it, davka to enable us
to make a point of how we're all doing more than the minimum.

In other words, the fact that we have a halacha of "one ner is enough"
is very useful for people in a shaas hadchak, but maybe that is merely
a side effect. Perhaps Chazal's main intention all along was to provide
a blatant demonstration of how dedicated we are to the mitzvos, a very
appropriate theme for this holiday.

History mavens, any ideas?

Akiva Miller

From: T613K@aol.com (personal email)
> Something else I meant to say--you reminded me of it, R' Simcha.
> My father put a bottle of wine in the closet when I was born and drank
> a lechaim from it when I got married.

I have previously heard of such a minhag [even, IIRC, by some non-Jews].

So you may be interested to learn of a very interesting story in the
Midrash that I happened to come across browsing thru a volume of the
Midrash Rabboh Hamevoyor [Koheles 3:2 p. 158 - for those who have this
excellent edition].

Here's my [very] rough translation of the relevant part of the story
[the RD version]:

R' Shimon ben Chalafta together with other inhabitants of Ein Te'eina
went to Tzipori to attend the bris of the newborn son of one of that
town's notables.

After the Bris the boy's father served the guests 7 year old wine, saying:
"Drink of this fine wine, as I have faith in the Master in Heaven that
I will live to also serve you of this same wine at the boy's wedding".

The guests replied: "K'sheim shehichnasto laBris kach tachniseihu
leTorah uleChuppah".

On the way home in the dark later, RSBC met the Malach Hamoves - who
was in a foul mood.

He asked him the reason for this and the MHM replied 'Because of the
difficult things [dvorim koshim] that I hear people say. [ie - that I
will do so and so in the future - when they have no idea how long they
will live'.]

RSBC asked him: 'And what upset you today?'

The MHM answered: 'The child that was nimol today was destined to be
taken away by me after 30 days.
Then his father pours you wine and says: "Drink this fine wine, as I
have faith that I will serve you this wine at the boy's wedding"...

And because of your Tefila -"K'sheim shehichnasto laBris kach tachniseihu
leTorah uleChuppah", the gezeireh was cancelled...

  Ad Kaan LeInyoneinu.

Lomadnu Mizeh -

1) That already 2000 years ago there was a minhag to put away wine from
   a bris for the child's chasuna.

2) That already 2000 years ago - it was a minhag to say "Kesheim
   shenichnas..."

3) That the "Kesheim Shenichnas" is NOT something that we should
   say 'abi gezogt' - but REALLY be mechaven - as it can save the
   child's life.

 SBA

I have heard the reason given that eating that part is 'kashah leshikcha.'
Hoever Rav Chaim Kinyavski in his pamphlet on things which cause
forgetting ( I think it is called Sefer HaZikaron but I'm not sure)
does not mention it.

From: T613K@aol.com (personal email)
> Something else I meant to say--you reminded me of it, R' Simcha.
> My father put a bottle of wine in the closet when I was born and drank
> a lechaim from it when I got married.

I have previously heard of such a minhag [even, IIRC, by some non-Jews].

So you may be interested to learn of a very interesting story in the
Midrash that I happened to come across browsing thru a volume of the
Midrash Rabboh Hamevoyor [Koheles 3:2 p. 158 - for those who have this
excellent edition].

Here's my [very] rough translation of the relevant part of the story
[the RD version]:

R' Shimon ben Chalafta together with other inhabitants of Ein Te'eina
went to Tzipori to attend the bris of the newborn son of one of that
town's notables.

After the Bris the boy's father served the guests 7 year old wine, saying:
"Drink of this fine wine, as I have faith in the Master in Heaven that
I will live to also serve you of this same wine at the boy's wedding".

The guests replied: "K'sheim shehichnasto laBris kach tachniseihu
leTorah uleChuppah".

On the way home in the dark later, RSBC met the Malach Hamoves - who
was in a foul mood.

He asked him the reason for this and the MHM replied 'Because of the
difficult things [dvorim koshim] that I hear people say. [ie - that I
will do so and so in the future - when they have no idea how long they
will live'.]

RSBC asked him: 'And what upset you today?'

The MHM answered: 'The child that was nimol today was destined to be
taken away by me after 30 days.
Then his father pours you wine and says: "Drink this fine wine, as I
have faith that I will serve you this wine at the boy's wedding"...

And because of your Tefila -"K'sheim shehichnasto laBris kach tachniseihu
leTorah uleChuppah", the gezeireh was cancelled...

  Ad Kaan LeInyoneinu.

Lomadnu Mizeh -

1) That already 2000 years ago there was a minhag to put away wine from
   a bris for the child's chasuna.

2) That already 2000 years ago - it was a minhag to say "Kesheim
   shenichnas..."

3) That the "Kesheim Shenichnas" is NOT something that we should
   say 'abi gezogt' - but REALLY be mechaven - as it can save the
   child's life.

 SBA

On 9 Dec 2003 at 18:54, SBA wrote:
> As RAF has already mentioned, that is obviously how it was 'in der
> heim'. And, AFAIK, that is how it is everywhere [by heimisheh Yidden]
>  - except in US of A.

Interesting.... I thought that crowding around the chupa was an Israeli
thing....

> Efshar, the 'sitting' minhag is a result of having chupas inside the
> shul - where sitting makes more sense than standing - this introduced
> later to the non-shul venues.

Could be. I can recall being in at least one chasuna in Montreal where
the chupa WAS outside and no one sat (of course, in Montreal, in late
November, it's freezing out anyway and too cold to sit - the Kallah wore
a fur coat over her gown :-).

But maybe l'chatchila in such a case one should stand for the Sheva
Brachos themselves? Although, as I noted, Rav Asher was m'lamed zchus
on those who sit by saying that chosson isn't mamash domeh l'melech
(e.g. can't be poretz gader) and therefore maybe he can be mochel.

> Here is Melbourne, AFAIK most of the non-frum [but so-called Os] have
> chupas in shul [with everyone - men and women sitting together in the
> main shul.]

> I was quite surprised when attending chupas of frum families in NY and
> Miami seeing the seats prepared for the guests. 

Surprised because there were seats or surprised because there is no
mechitza? Typically, at least at the fruhm weddings I have been to in
the US, the men and women sit on opposite sides of the main shul, but
there is no mechitza between them. That set up is repeated in hotels and
other venues. And everyone stands when the Chosson and Kallah walk by,
but from what I recall (I have been to only one wedding in the US since
I made aliya) people do not stand for the Sheva Brachos except for those
already standing under the chupa and the m'vorchim.

> I was just as
> surprised with the 'hole in the roof' trick rather than having the
> chuppah outside.

I suspect that's just a function of the weather. Rebbetzin Katz, do 
they do that in Miami too? The one chupa I have been to in LA was 
outdoors (but I think they didn't stand for the chupa there either - 
it was a long time ago...). 

-- Carl

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

I have heard the reason given that eating that part is 'kashah leshikcha.'
Hoever Rav Chaim Kinyavski in his pamphlet on things which cause
forgetting ( I think it is called Sefer HaZikaron but I'm not sure)
does not mention it.

> Two reasons:
> * brings about forgetfulness (shikkhah)
> * once upon a time people brought their doughs to the 
> baker's oven, and the edges would touch each other, such that there
> might have been a piece of somebody else's 'hallah at the edge of yours,
> i.e. a kind of theft.

The funny thing is that one of my sons [don't remember which] said that
they learned that eating the ends of the challa is a segula for pregnancy.

 --Rena 

[R' Carl Sherer:]
>> 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 .....

> She could have ...buried them somewhere on the way. If Lavan
> was racing after Yaakov (covered the distance of seven days in a day),
> surely he would not have had a whole lot of time to leave the road to
> look for them.

But for a similar reason, Rochel had not had an opportunity to bury or
burn the teraphim--they were all on the run. And she didn't want Yakov
or anyone else to know that she had taken the teraphim. She intended to
bury them when they got somewhere settled and she had a chance to slip
away unseen. [Don't remember where I heard this.]

--Toby Katz

On 10 Dec 2003 at 2:58, Micha Berger wrote:
>: I understood him as attributing some sort of supernatural power to
>: the trafim. REK?

> ... and I thought terafim were articles of kishuf that were
> worshipped. In which case, they would have real supernatural powers.

Ain hachi nami - that would be a reason for taking them with her. It 
would not be a reason for not burying them. 

 - Carl

Seeing that someone mentioned the Trafim of Lovon, I had a look at a
few of the meforshim and found the following interesting facts:

The Targum Yonoson [also Pirkei d'RE & Zohar] explains what these Trafim
were -
A firstborn was killed and beheaded. The head was then salted and spiced.
They then wrote a 'shem ruach hatumoh' on a 'tzitz zohov' which was
placed under the tongue - after which the head was inserted into the wall.
Candles were lit before it and it was bowed to.
This pickled head then spoke to its worshippers.

Why Rochel stole these Trafim?

The Midrash says it was Leshem Shomayim. She thought:
"What, I am going away and let my father continue with AZ?"

Other Meforshim [Rashbam, Chizkuni, Daas Zekenim] say that the reason
she stole them was because had she left them behind, the Trafim would
have revealed to Lovon where they were.

The Ibn Ezra says in one pshat that the Trafim was a clock[!?]
(Kli nechoshes ha'osui lodaas chelkei hasho'os).
Why this would be considered an AZ?, I don't know.
The Ramban seems to say that it was a 'magic clock' which told the future.

BTW the Midrash Rabboh says that despite Rochel's apologies, Lovon DID
check up on her camel - but a 'neis' happened and the trafim turned
into jars...

Agav, the MR there also tells us what Yaakov Ovinu did whilst looking
after the flocks.

He said Tehillim.
[A  machlokeh -  if he said it all or only the 15 Shir Hamaalos].

-----

Meanwhile someone showed me an interesting Midrash brought in the Peirush
HoRosh in Breishis [6:2].

Some malochim who descended to this world met a girl a tzadeikes whom they
desired. She demanded as pre-payment - their wings - which they gave her.
She promptly flew up to heaven and escaped from an aveireh. She grabbed
the 'Pnei Kisei" and HKBH spread His cloud over her and appointed her
amongst the Mazolos..."Vehayno Mazel Besuloh..."

Those dudded wingless Malochim couldn't return to heaven and remained
on earth until Yaakov's dream - when they went up on the ladder...

OTOH, last week someone told me a story about the Ruzhiner z'l who
as a 4-year old, learning Chumash with his melamed, would always ask
Rashi's kashes.

But when he was taught about the Sulam - 'Malachei Elokim olim veyordim
bo' - he was silent.
The rebbe asked him: "Isn't it 'shverr' for you, that they first went
up and then they came down?"

The boy answered: "No. After all, it was only a dream..."

SBA

Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2003 at 9:11, Arie Folger wrote:
>>> R Ezriel Krumbein wrote:
>>>>> 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? ...

>>> I understood REK to mean that the burial would be a sign of
>>> Yaakov's passing by (a sign a tracker would look out for).

>> I understood him as attributing some sort of supernatural power to
>> the trafim. REK?

> Ain hachi nami - that would be a reason for taking them with her. It
> would not be a reason for not burying them.

But it would be "attributing some sort of supernatural power to the
trafim" in a manner that would not "be assur for a Jew to believe".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

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


[ 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         ]