Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 058

Tuesday, December 16 2003

• Re: Putting away wine/K'sheim shenichnas...
• Re: Chanuka - how common was mehadrins
• Chanukah Lights and Late Work
• Re: Must be moicheh
• Re: Must be moicheh
• Must be moiche
• Re: Must be moiche
• Re: Aram/Bavel
• Aram /bavel
• Re: Aram/Bavel
• panim chadashos
• Lechol Beriyosav
• Demai 3:6
• Obligation to Prevent?
• Chassidus - justification
• Minhogei Pidyon Haben
• RE: Chanukah Lights and Late Work
• Re: Lechol Beriyosav
• Standing/Sitting for the chupa

>It is just as likely that the acts in the story were spontaneous, and
>only someone in response to the story -- perhaps even centuries later,
>while learning gemara -- who caused the idea to catch on as a minhag.

See the gemara in gittin related to the churban. There it says a tree
was planted when a child was born to be used when they get married for
the chuppah.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> 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...

> 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...............

I think that R. Miller is correct in that economic conditions in the past
were much different at times, had their effects, and must be taken into
consideration. Therefore, over the years, it was not always universal
or near so for all to be mehadrin min hamehadrin in this inyan.

Within the last two years or so, a sefer came out in Eretz Yisroel called
'Bameh madlikin' by Zohar Amar et al (IIRC). It (although focusing on
neiros Shabbos, based on perek bameh madlikin in masechta Shabbos)
is quite illuminating, as it attempts to exactly define/identify
the various materials mentioned in that mishnah for neiros Shabbos
(wicks and fuel) and changes in that area over the years, taking into
consideration cost and availability of various materials. In recent times
(as we have discussed here in the past) some women have started lighting
candles for each child [mistakenly/wrongly based on a knas for those
who missed lighting due to childbirth, etc., a not very common event
nowadays], while in the past, at first one ner was used and then two,
kineged zochor and shomor. Nowadays, in our relative affluence, people
are tempted to add on more, despite questions about such practice.

Similarly, I suspect, WRT ner Chanukah - relative affluence is widespread
today and therefore mehadrin min hamehadrin has become very widespread
and almost universal - but it wasn't always so.

Mordechai

The question comes up very year of when and how to light when coming home
from work long after the zeman began. The following is from R' Ya'akov
Kamenetsky's Emes LeYa'akov on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 672 n. 586.

Question: If a husband comes home late from work, should the wife who
is at home light in his place?

Answer: Even though min ha-din one should do this, for reasons of shalom
bayis it is not a good idea.

The opposite is also the case, when the husband is home before the wife
(who is at work). Even though min ha-din he should light and need not
wait for her to be there, this is not appropriate for him to do. Even
more so when she is working so that he can learn Torah; this would
certainly be an improper practice.

Another issue that I will be having this year is what to do at a wedding.
At the wedding I will IYH be attending, the chupah will start long before
sheki'ah but the meal is scheduled for about half an hour before sheki'ah.
R' Hershel Schachter told the chassan (who is himself and accomplished TC)
that since the *chupah* will start be-heter then the entire chasunah is
mutar and we (included RHS who will be there) can eat and light when we
get home.

Regarding going to a wedding straight from work (after the zeman begins),
R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky said that one's wife should light for him at home.
He called the practice of lighting at the wedding a joke (ElY, SA OC
677 n. 590).

Gil Student

I asked <<< Which side has the burden of proof? Do we presume that since
there *is* an issur biah, then negia is also assur, even though even
biah is "only" d'Rabanan, and even that issur is expected to be lifted
in a few hours? Or do we presume that negia was forbidden only when biah
is an issur d'oraisa? >>>

I was trying to think of a case where biah is clearly and unarguably
neither more nor less than an issur d'rabanan, and Tisha B'Av came to
mind. A glance at Mishna Brurah 554:37 and Shaar Hatziyun 554:44 will
show many opinions and details on that question, which (it seems to me)
proves that at the very least, there is no *automatic* issur negiah
which results from the issur biah.

Depending on many factors, the issur biah MAY extend to chibbuk vnishuk,
or to negiah, or to harchakos, but each is judged separately, and nothing
is automatic.

Akiva Miller

On 12 Dec 2003 at 12:06, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Here's an additional data point: Let's suppose that someone wants to
> say that touching during the photos should be forbidden (or "avoided"
> if you prefer) because it will lead to thoughts or desires that (for
> halachic and/or simply practical reasons) cannot be consummated until
> later on. Now, wouldn't that also apply to what the couple can do in
> the yichud room? 

Why do you think there's an issur to have relations in the Yichud 
room? (I agree that most people probably don't but that's not the 
point). 

 - Carl

From: gil@aishdas.org
> Minhagei Maharil hilchot nisuin and Sefer Rokeach 353. See shu"t Bnei
> Banim vol.1 no. 37(1).

Regarding the Maharil - that was not "prior to chuppa", that IS (an
essential part of) chuppa, according to Minhag Magence. This ceremony
(part of a drawn out nissuin ritual) was done in the morning in the
presence of the Rabbanim and Parnassim of the Kehilla on the way to
shacharis. (Please note that the mishne lemelech has an arichus on chuppa
prior to kiddushin). In any event, we should not confuse photographers
and videographers with Rabbanim and Parnassim, and the minhagei hakehilot
of chupa with social norms like snapping pictures. Clearly, if a couple
chose not to have pictures at their wedding there would not be a violation
of minhagei chuppa. In Magence the procedure was not optional, that was
how chuppa was defined. Accordingly, there was a deliberate attempt
to do an act indicating mesira l'rshus haba'al. That is probably why
afterwards she waited outside the shul for him to finish shacharis,
as the kalla is now included in the chassan's tefillos as part of his
household, while up until now she was blessed through the tefillos of the
father. Perhaps there is a strong message in this early morning minhag
on the way to shacharis, namely, that the husband's responsibilities of
she'er and csus towards his wife includes davening to Hashem for these
things, so as to be able to support her with dignity.

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

>Regarding the Maharil - that was not "prior to
>chuppa", that IS (an essential part of) chuppa,
>according to Minhag Magence.

It was prior to both kiddushin and nisu'in.  That is the point.

Gil Student

In Avodah V12 #57 dated 12/12/03 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> 
writes:
> Someone made the (to me) surprising assertion that Aram Naharayim (as in
> ir Nachor) is the same as Bavel (geographically, that is). Is this true?

I am surprised that you are surprised. "Naharayim" means "two rivers."
The two rivers--I have always assumed--are the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Yes, that is where Bavel was, and where Iraq is. That geograhic area
was also referred to in olden times as "MesoPOTAMIA," which is Greek for
"between [two] rivers."

The word "hippoPOTAMUS" means "horse of the river," same root.

As I tell my students all the time, it is just spine-chilling to
realize that an area of the world so central to the history of the
Jewish people--home of Avraham, home of the Talmud--should once again
be on center stage in world events. It's like living in Biblical times.

--Toby Katz

The chevra seem to have generally agreed amongst themselves that
Aram-Naharayim and Bavel are synonomous. The map of Mesopotamia
referenced by R' Yitzchok Zirkind, however, supplies the understanding of
historians and archaeologists on the matter. In it, Aram-Naharayim is in
northern Iraq while ancient Babyon is in the south. The evidence that
Aram is in the north is found in the place names of some ancient northern
towns such as Harran and Nachor. Nor is there any evidence in Tanach
that Aram and Bavel were identical or contiguous. In fact, the evidence
from Tanach suggests that Aram was close to the kingdom of Israel, for the
Arameans warred with that kingdom and were their chief enemies until the
Assyrians became a world power. The only apparent distinction between
Aram and Aram-Naharayim is that the latter was that part of "greater"
Aram that lay between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Furthermore,
the verse in Nu. 23:7 has Bilaam saying "From Aram did Balak, king of
Moav, lead me; from the mountains of the East.." The only mountains
in Iraq are in the north. Mention should also be made of the distinction
that the Ramban demonstrates between Avraham's birthplace (Aram) and Ur.
The former was the original family home that Avraham's brother, Nachor,
never left. The rest of the family journeyed to Ur where they remained
for many years, and where the youngest brother, Harran, was born
and died. Hashem then rescued Avraham and his family from Ur and they
jounneyed first to their homeland, Aram, before Avraham continued on
to Canaan.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:31:40 EST T613K@aol.com writes:
<<I am surprised that you are surprised. "Naharayim" means "two rivers."
The two rivers--I have always assumed--are the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Yes, that is where Bavel was, and where Iraq is.>>

I presume you reviewed the Ramban that RYZ posted.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Some time back we had discussed whether a woman whose presence at sheva
berachos adds to the simcha, could be counted as panim chadashos.

Rav Dovid Cohen writes that the shita that she cannot is based on an
understanding of panim chadashos per the Tosefos Rid, that p.c. adds to
the berachos because the p.c. was not yet yotze with the berachos for
this couple. However, according to (most of)the rishonim who hold that
it's an inyan of ribuy simcha, she could be counted as panim chadashos.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Why do we say lechol beriyosav asher barah-isn't that redundant?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Demai 3:6 teaches us that when we give food to our mother-in-law, you
take ma'aser from what you give her, and ma'aser from what your recieve
from her (i.e., after she cooks it into a meal), because we are worried
she might have exchanged some of the ingredients for others.

But this is troubling to me. Suppose the "mother-in-law" is the mother,
wife, and daughter, of a Sage. We are worried about her?

It also occurs to me: how was it done in practice? You bring over stuff
to make a pizza (ok, a pita), and the m-in-law makes food, and then you
stash away 1/10th of what she just cooked, for ma'aser? How did one
give ma'aser of such small amounts anyways?

This latter question is prompted by many of the Mishnayos in perek gimmel.
Where we learn, e.g., if one wishes to cut off leaves of vegetables in
order to lighten the load, he must take ma'aser (3:2), or if one finds
fruit on the road and takes it in order to eat it, he must take ma'aser
(3:3), and so forth. How did one do that in practice?

Thanks,
 - Sholom

I was walking through a furniture store the other day with my wife-to-be
when she overheard the following exchange between a mother and her 2-3
year old child. The child had evidently been playing around a bit too much
to suit the mother. The words overheard were (said by the mother glaring
at the child, bent down with her face inches from the child's face):
"If you don't stop this right now, I am going to beat you to death."

Based on appearances (skin-color) I am very confident that this person was
not Jewish. My question is, upon hearing something like this, do I have
any obligation to take action? And if you say no because the person is a
non-Jew, what if the appearance of the mother led me to believe that she
and her child was Jewish? Should I take a statement like that to be just
the nonsense spouted by someone with no intention of following through
with such a threat? Or when I hear something like that (it was not said
in a joking manner) must I take it seriously, try to follow the person,
find a police officer, etc? How would such an obligation (if it exists)
differ whether the mother was Jewish or not (if it differs at all)?

An extension of this question: At what point does permissible (at least
by Jewish law) parental corporal punishment (for which it would be none
of my business to intercede) become abuse? At what point do I become
obligated (maybe from lo ta'amod al dam rei'echa?) to intercede? Only
when it comes to sakanat nefashot? Or earlier?

Yaakov Ellis

What are the sources in chassidic literature which explain why chassidus
was started?

Daniel Eidensohn

Discussion re Minhogei Pidyon Haben including reasons for the sugar cubes,
knobbel and jewellery placed on the child
<http://www.hydepark.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=725949>

> The question comes up very year of when and how to light 
> when coming home from work long after the zeman began. The 
> following is from R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky's Emes LeYa'akov on 
> Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 672 n. 586.

> Question: If a husband comes home late from work, should 
> the wife who is at home light in his place?

> Answer: Even though min ha-din one should do this, for 
> reasons of shalom bayis it is not a good idea.

Very interesting. My husband asked a shaila of our rav because he works
until midnight and gets home sometime between 12:30am and 1:00am. He told
me that he was told that I should light for him and that if he wants to
light once he gets home he should do so without a bracha.

This is logical if you consider that these are my husband's kavua hours
and by the time he gets home it will most certainly be past the time most
people are out on the streets and so it is really pointless for him to
light at that point. So, I guess I'm the "official lighter" this year.

 --Rena 

In a message dated 12/15/2003 4:16:29 AM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Why do we say lechol beriyosav asher barah-isn't that redundant?

See Darkei Moshe O"C 187 (printed in the Tur), our Nusach is found also
in the Rambam, Machzor Vitri and Ohr Zorua, (taken from Siddur Hagonim
vHamkubalim).

The Rokeach actualy omits it.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I saw the Knesses HaGdola (EH 62:2) inside tonight (the shul has a
> set). He is quite harsh regarding those who don't stand for the Sheva
> Brachos (apparently under the chupa). He refers to "HaPlia" as his source,
> which I assume is the Hafla'a (which makes sense because it's the same
> author as the Makneh which Rav Asher mentioned). Still haven't found it
> in the Hafla'a though.

The Kneses HaGdola predates the Hafla'a (Makneh) by about a 100 years... 

Chaim G Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]