Volume 27: Number 215
Sun, 12 Dec 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:06:57 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and bigamy
You are mekadesh k'das Moshe V'yisrael means that you accept that when they
want to be mafki'a (such as when you deliver a get which is kosher
miderabanan) they can, not that when you don't fulfill some takanah that it
isn't chal at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101207/22ccfe2b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:53:07 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Unusual Chanukah Minhag?
RSW asked:
> At hadlakas neiros, a crowd gathered, holding towels,
> around the madlik and the menorah. As he is about to
> start lighting, everyone throws the towels at him and the
> menorah.
><SNIP>
> 1- Is anyone familiar with this minhag and who it is practiced by?
Yes, Chassidim practice this. They would throw the towel on the
shamash (the person). My late father opposed this practice, so one
year, in the Pzsworzke Stiebl in Antwerp, he collected all the towels
and hid them, so that the only towel left in the house was the
rebbe's, Reb Itzikl. So, R'Itzikl took his own towel, and personally
threw it on the shamash.
Unfortunately, I cannot help you with either sources or a rational. I
understand Jeckische Minhoggim a lot better. ;-)
KT,
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:55:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora
I had written:
> and on Chanuka, if the husband is away on a
> business trip, the wife can light for him at home.
R' Akiva Blum commented:
> I don't believe this is true. He must light
> for himself where he is with a brocha.
Referring to an achsenai, MB 677:2 writes: "The din is that if his
wife lights Ner Chanukah at home, then he is yotzay his chiyuv with
her lighting, even though he is far from home, and he no longer has
to join [with the host] even with prutos."
The MB continues with questions about what his and his wife's kavana
was, but that does not detract from the basic din that the wife *can*
light for him.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Weight Watchers®
Official Site. Discover Weight Loss Freedom with Weight Watchers Today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe211e65c9e5aafe1st06vuc
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:32:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and Bigamy
RZS wrote:
> Oh, I see, you mean a real
> bigamous marriage. Could R Gershom could have decreed that such
> marriages wouldn't be chal? I don't know; it seems presumptious for
> a local rav, making a local takanah, to equate himself to the "rabanan"
> on whose daas one is mekadesh. It makes sense to me that "das moshe
> veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael, not including local takanos
> of recent vintage and set to expire soon, which is what R Gershom's
> cherem was at the time. He wasn't to know that it would spread to the
> majority of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag.
> In any event, though, whether he could or couldn't have made such a
> tenai, the fact is that he didn't. So the marriage is chal, and the
> violator is in cherem.
The question still makes sense without regard to R. Gershom's Intent
or the original breadth of the Takanah. Now, given that the Takanah of
R. Gershom has indeed spread far and wide and accepted by the large
majority of Kelal Yisroel, would this be considered "kedas Mosheh
veYisrael" or not with the appropriate consequence as to whether the
kedushin is chal?
While in your response to me you make a valid point, in that clearly
not every kidushin b'issur is batel adatei d'rabanan, eg., cohen who
marries a gerusha etc. So we now need some very clear guidelines as to
which cases are included in "daas Moshe v'Yisroel." We now need to ask
whether nidan didan would or would not be included. I am not suggesting
I know the answer, just that it is a valid question in my mind. But if
you definintely feel that nidan didan is not included under "daas Moshe
v'Yisroel," then you need to explain under what set of guidelines you
came to this conclusion.
Freilach'n Chanuka veKol tuv
Chaim Manaster
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:39:58 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and Bigamy
On 7/12/2010 10:22 AM, Hankman wrote:
> Given your current response to me, your previous response ("It makes
> sense to me that "das moshe veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael,
> not including local takanos of recent vintage and set to expire soon,
> which is what R Gershom's cherem was at the time. ") is simply a red
> herring and not relevant as even without these points, you now argue
> that the kedushin would be chal.
> You also wrote: "He wasn't to know that it would spread to the majority
> of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag."
> You seem to be soser the idea you espouse in your reply to me. What
> difference would his knowledge of future acceptance make, as you argue
> in your reply to me in "getting back to basics."
Please reread my original response. I made two points: 1) I'm skeptical
that R Gershom could, or at least would have felt that he should, give
his takanah such an extraordinary chizuk as to annul any marriage that
defies it. 2) Whether he could have done so or not, the fact is that
he didn't.
Perhaps, had he known that his little local regulation would turn into a
major and permanent part of halacha for the majority of Jewry, he might
have added such a chizuk to it. Or perhaps he wouldn't have, even with
that knowledge. But the fact is that he didn't have that knowledge,
and therefore I strongly doubt that the thought ever crossed his mind.
At any rate, we know that he didn't do it, so the whole question is moot.
Your position, on the other hand, seems to be that any kiddushin that
violates a rabbinic law is automatically invalid, without the need for
a specific rabbinic takanah to that effect. If that were so, then it
wouldn't matter what R Gershom did. But I don't think that's tenable,
because if so rabbinic laws would be stronger than Torah laws, since we
know that many marriages that violate explicit Torah law are still valid.
> While in your response to me you make a valid point, in that clearly
> not every kidushin b'issur is batel adatei d'rabanan, eg., cohen who
> marries a gerusha etc. So we now need some very clear guidelines as to
> which cases are included in "daas Moshe v'Yisroel." We now need to ask
> whether nidan didan would or would not be included. I am not suggesting
> I know the answer, just that it is a valid question in my mind. But if
> you definintely feel that nidan didan is not included under "daas Moshe
> v'Yisroel," then you need to explain under what set of guidelines you
> came to this conclusion.
My position is that I reject the whole idea that a marriage that is
contrary to "das moshe veyisrael" is invalid. I don't know where such
an idea can be found. AFAIK the source for your idea is the gemara in
Gittin, which says that "kedas moshe veyisrael" is equivalent to "ada`ta
derabanan". But all that means is that the rabbanan are *able* to say
"no" and invalidate the marriage; not that they have to, let alone that
their disapproval automatically invalidates the marriage without their
saying anything at all!
Let's forget the complications of R Gershom's situation, and instead
consider laws of Chazal, which are certainly binding on klal yisrael.
The rabbanan definitely disapproved of anyone who is mekadesh without
prior arrangement (aka "shiduchin"). They made it very clear that this
is pritzus, and forbidden, and anyone who does so gets makas mardus.
Could they have gone further and said that such kidushin are invalid
because it's on their da`as and they say "no"? Of course they could.
But did they? No, they didn't. And therefore to this day such a
kidushin would be valid, and after his makas mardus the chasan can go
back to his kallah and live happily ever after.
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:57:28 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kennethgmil...@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday 07 December 2010 1:56 PM
> To: yda...@gmail.com
>
>
> Referring to an achsenai, MB 677:2 writes: "The din is that
> if his wife lights Ner Chanukah at home, then he is yotzay
> his chiyuv with her lighting, even though he is far from
> home, and he no longer has to join [with the host] even with prutos."
>
> The MB continues with questions about what his and his wife's
> kavana was, but that does not detract from the basic din that
> the wife *can* light for him.
>
I misread what you wrote. But anyway, in that case, they are not the same.
Neiros Shabbos, he cannot be yotzei with her lighting, and must light for
himself where he is.
Akiva
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:50:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Afikomon
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:08:18PM -0600, Sacks, Avram wrote:
: Greco/Roman culture and given new meaning. Reclining? Well, that is
: how the citizens of Greece had their feasts, reclining on sofas. It is
: not a stretch to imagine that the matzah that was eaten as the dessert
: so that its taste lingered was given a name borrowed from the Greeks and
: used to connote "after meal entertainment."
Perhaps as a general rule, but the argument that afiqoman is an instance
is not that strong, IMHO. There is a din to leave the taste of the
qorban in your mouth. This turns the qorban, or its zikaron, into a
desert. Particularly if my understanding is correct that people just ate
a kezayis of qorban pesach, eaten al hasova. So, the notion of having
a desert predates the Greek, and the Greek would appear to just be a
useful term from the empire -- much like calling the beis din hagadol
"Sanhedrin".
I knew about tying afikoman to the Aramaic "afiqu mina", that the
afiqoman is the middle matzah which was earlier "removed from them". Also,
the Chaldian "afiku man" -- dish remover -- ie desert. That said, the
Greek epikomion is also an oft-cited etymology (Tosafos R' Aqiva Eiger;
Tif'eres Yisrael, Yachin, #51). According to R' Pinechas Kehati, the only
real one -- the others being notrikon. And while the Greek literally
translates to simple "that which comes after", I just learned that in
practice it referred to entertainment after the meal, not food.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas HaOlam
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] washing hands
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:59:51AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> In any case, we're also still carrying RET's question... So, don't use
:> the minimum of water. Instead of using a CI revi'is of 150cc, use 175.
..
: While I agree with Micha I wonder why even consider the shiur of CI.
: Many pasken that for a derabbanan we go le-kula with the smaller shiur...
Treating a machloqes like a safeiq is a last-ditch resort, only to be done
when you can't actually pasqen. Those who say we use a smaller estimate
for revi'is when finding a minimum for a derabbanan (or a maximum for
deoraisa) are only those who feel there is nothing compelling about one
pesaq over another.
In any case, as I already mentioned, I find it plausible that revi'is
mequmetzes means a small estimate for a revi'is. And therefore invoked
the CI to avoid that entire topic.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:35:38 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] washing hands
_____
From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Eli Turkel
Sent: Tuesday 07 December 2010 10:00 AM
While I agree with Micha I wonder why even consider the shiur of CI.
Many pasken that for a derabbanan we go le-kula with the smaller shiur. Here
we are not talking about even a derabbanan which is a bare reviit. So IMHO we
should use the smaller shiur of 86cc. In any case the basic reasoning is
the same as Micha
The maaseh was in Bnei Brak.
Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101207/ccabe289/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:45:34 -0800
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kiddushin and bigamy
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting story from the last shiur of R. Zilberstein on medical
> halacha.
>
> A man was always making bad investments against the advice of his wife.
> Finally
> she went to a bet din to demand a divorce which they required the husband
> to give.
> The man gave the "get" and a little while later remarried. Much later the
> wife decided to
> remarry and the mesader kiddushin asked to see the "get" (I guess some copy
> as she
> normally doesnt get the original). He found out that her middle name was
> left out
> of the :get" and said she needed a new get. When she went to the first
> husband he said
> for a second "get" he wants $50,000.
>
>
I always understood that the reason that the wife doesn't get the original
get was davka to prevent this kind of situation arising.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101207/b7d9acff/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:31:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora
R' Akiva Blum wrote:
> Neiros Shabbos, he cannot be yotzei with her lighting, and must
> light for himself where he is.
Mechaber 263:6 and MB 263:31 seem to be talking about a husband and
wife who have separate bedrooms in the same house. They write that
the husband does have to light in his room, but that is only to make
sure that he does not trip over sticks and stones; he does *not* say
the bracha on this lighting.
Aruch Hashulchan 263:5 amplifies that, and says that if the husband
is out of town and has his own room, then he'll have to light (as
above), and he'll also have to say a bracha on it, because his wife's
bracha cannot go so far as to cover neros which are in another place entirely.
Now, I concede that this makes it *sound* like the husband has a
chiyuv of Ner Shabbos totally independently from his wife, but I
don't think it is so clear, because that is only in the case of where
the husband is both away from home and also has his own room. It is
important to look at the end of that Aruch Hashulchan: "If he does
*not* have his own room, he does not have to light, nor to say the
bracha, because he was mekayem the mitzvah of Ner Shabbos at home via
his wife."
Now, if indeed he can be mekayem the mitzvah of Ner Shabbos at home
via his wife, then why does he make a bracha in the case where he
does have his own room? I'm not sure, but my guess is that even if
there seems to be two levels for this mitzvah: The full-blown and
very famous mitzvah of Ner Shabbos, and also a mitzvah to have light
in one's room. And even if one is yotzay Ner Shabbos via his wife
back home, the mitzvah to have light in one's room gets a bracha anyway.
Thus, I stands by my original comment that regardless of whether
husband and wife are both home, or whether one is at home and the
other is away, the halachos of Ner Chanuka and Ner Shabbos are
strikingly similar to each other (even if they're not totally identical).
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
SHOCKING: 2010 Honda Civic for $1,734.09
Is this price real? YES! We reveal the TRUTH!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe7d85e31275b97bcst04vuc
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:42:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora
I posted a link to the following earlier, but it seems from
the continued discussion that many people didn't bother chasing
it. So, here's a discussion of who should light from R' David
Brofsky in Gush's VBM's "Chanukah Package" for this year
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chag71/chan71.htm>.
My apologies to RMP and others who can't receive more than 32k or so per
email. (Blackberry has such a limitation, among others.) I'm betting the
2nd essay in the above link will take up the rest of this digest. You
can find it there.
-Micha
NER CHANUKA: WHO LIGHTS AND HOW MANY CANDLES?
Rav David Brofsky
In this shiur, we will we discuss a woman's obligation in ner Chanuka,
and the practical and conceptual importance of this issue. In addition,
we will endeavor to define the essential mitzva of ner Chanuka and try to
understand the various opinions that exist regarding the three different
levels of performing this mitzva enumerated by the Gemara.
WOMEN AND NEROT CHANUKA
The Gemara (Shabbat 23a) teaches:
"Women certainly light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught: Women
are obligated in ner Chanuka, as they were also in the miracle..."
Apparently, despite the broad exemption from time-bound commandments
("mitzvot aseh she-hazman gerama"), women are obligated to fulfill the
mitzva of Chanuka lights. Similarly, the Gemara elsewhere teaches that
women are included in the obligations of mikra megilla (Megilla 4a)
and arba kosot (Pesachim 108a), which are also time-bound commandments.
The Rishonim discuss the precise meaning of the phrase, "af hen hayu
be-oto ha-nes" -- "they were also in the miracle." Rashi, in the
context of Megilla reading (Megilla 4a), explains that the decree of
annihilation included both men and women, and hence the mitzvot enacted
to commemorate the nation's deliverance naturally apply to men and women
alike. The Rashbam (Tosafot, Megilla 4a, s.v. she-af hen) disagrees,
explaining that in all three instances -- in Persia, in Egypt, and during
the Greek persecution -- women played a crucial role in Am Yisrael's
salvation. Esther, of course, brought about the deliverance of the Jewish
people during the time of Achashverosh. The four cups of wine drunk at
the seder commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, regarding which the Sages
comment (in Sota 11b and elsewhere), "In the merit of righteous women,
the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt." As for the Chanuka
miracle, the Rashbam claims that this miracle was facilitated by Yehudit,
a beautiful Jewish widow known to us through the apocryphal book of
Judith. Yehudit ingratiated herself to the enemy general, Holofernes,
and eventually decapitated him while he slept in a drunken stupor. The
Syrians, having lost their leader, fled, and the Jewish people were saved.
Aside from the questionable historicity of this story, Tosafot note that
the phrase, "they were ALSO in the miracle" indicates that the women
were also saved, or, as the Talmud Yerushalmi explains, they were "also
in the same situation of insecurity" ("safek," or danger), and not that
they were responsible for the miraculous deliverance in each occurrence.
The Rishonim also discuss the scope and nature of this halakha. Tosafot
(Pesachim 108b s.v. hayu), for example, question why women are exempt
from the commandment to dwell in sukkot, given that they, too, benefited
from God's miraculous protection in the wilderness. Elsewhere (Megilla
4a ibid.), Tosafot inquire as to why the Talmud does not invoke the rule
of af hen hayu as the basis for women's inclusion in the mitzva of matza,
resorting instead to a different source.
Interestingly, the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839), in his
work of responsa (O.C. 185), asks why the Talmud didn't obligate women to
wear tefillin, which also serve as a reminder for the Exodus from Egypt.
Tosafot (Pesachim 108b) suggest that the principle of af hen hayu refers
only to women's obligation to perform mitzvot that are of Rabbinic
origin (mi-derabbanan). As such, this rule cannot be applied to sukka
or matza. Furthermore, they claim that af hen hayu is effective only in
obligating women on a Rabbinic level, and cannot mandate the performance
of a mitzva on the level of Torah obligation (mi-de'orayta).
Theoretically, it would seem, the principle of af hen, according to
Tosafot, may obligate women to perform any mitzva of Rabbinic origin
instituted to commemorate a miracle experienced equally by women.
Thus, for example, we might consider applying this rule to the obligation
of shalosh se'udot -- to eat three meals on Shabbat. The Talmud (Shabbat
117b) infers this requirement from the Torah's threefold use of the word
"today" (ha-yom) in reference to the manna: "And Moshe said: Eat it (the
manna) today, for today is Shabbat to God; today you will not find it in
the field" (Shemot 16:25). The repetition of the word ha-yom indicated
to Chazal that that one should eat three meals each Shabbat in order to
commemorate the miracle of the mann. While according to most opinions,
the obligation to eat three meals on Shabbat is of Rabbinic origin,
the Gemara clearly relates its performance to the miracle of the mann.
Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Ha-yashar, Teshuvot 70) insists that women are
included under this obligation, as they also benefitted from the miracle
of the mann which the three Shabbat meals are intended to commemorate. The
Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 291:6) codifies this position, though his ruling
may be attributed to various different reasons, and does not necessarily
stem from Rabbeinu Tam's contention (see Mishna Berura 26).
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik often cited his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik,
as suggesting a distinction between a mitzva intended to publicize a
miracle (pirsumei nisa), and a mitzva that we perform merely to recall a
miracle. He explained that the three mitzvot to which the Talmud applies
the rule of af hen hayu -- ner Chanuka, mikra megilla, and arba kosot --
are intended for pirsumei nisa, to publicize the given miracle. This
is not the case with the other mitzvot mentioned above. Although by
sitting in a sukka one recalls God's protection of the Jewish people in
the desert, and the three Shabbat meals commemorate the miracle of the
mann, their primary function is not to publicize these miracles.
"Af hen hayu be-oto ha-nes," R. Moshe Soloveitchik explains, applies
only to mitzvot of pirsumei nisa, and therefore does not apply to mitzvot
such as sukka, tefillin and shalosh se'udot, which are not intended for
the purpose of publicizing a miracle.
This approach clearly underscores the special quality of ner Chanuka,
as a mitzva defined and dictated by its ability to publicize the miracle.
WOMEN AND MEHADRIN
The basic mitzva of ner Chanuka is ner ish u-veito (Shabbat 21b),
meaning, that a single light be kindled in the home each night of
Chanuka. The higher level of performance, or mehadrin, requires that
each member of the household light Chanuka candles. The question arises
as to whether women, especially married women, should kindle their own
lights, like other members of the household, or whether they should
fulfill their obligation through the lighting of their husbands or other
family members. As we shall see shortly, this question is only relevant
according to the Ashkenazic practice, according to which each person
kindles their own lights. According to Sephardic custom only one person,
usually the head of the household, lights.
The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510-1574) writes that one candle
certainly suffices for both husband and wife (Teshuvot Maharshal 85). The
Eliya Rabba (671) and, later, the Mishna Berura (671:9), explain that
married women do not light because of the halakhic concept of ishto
ke-gufo ('a man's wife is like himself'). The Eliya Rabba adds that for
this reason, married women do not light individually to fulfill the
level of mehadrin. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe O.C. 109) notes
that according to this rationale, if the wife had lit Chanuka candles,
then the husband should not light, unless he specifically had in mind
not to fulfill his obligation through his wife's lighting (see Rema
677:3). Furthermore, it would seem that according to the Eliya Rabba,
there is no inherent preference for the husband to light instead of the
wife, and they may even take turns if they so desire.
In any event, the practice among many married women is not to light
Chanuka candles. As noted by many Acharonim, this custom is valid only
with regard to married women; it would seem that unmarried women and
women whose husbands are not currently at home must certainly light
Chanuka candles.
Yet, in many communities it is customary for even single women not to
light Chanuka candles. Some have suggested that the since this lighting
should preferably take place outside, and imposing such a requirement upon
an unmarried girl would violate her "modesty," the custom developed for
unmarried women not to light at all (Chatam Sofer, Shabbat 21b). Others
explain that it would be disrespectful for a girl to light given that her
married mother does not light (Mishmeret Shalom 48:2). Yet a third theory
claims, quite simply, that since a girl will not light after marriage,
there is no reason to encourage her to light while still single. Clearly,
however, a woman living alone must light nerot Chanuka.
Rav Soloveitchik, as recorded by R. Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Ha-Rav,
pg. 226), found it difficult to apply the principle of ishto ke-gufo to
this mitzva, and therefore ruled that even married women, not to mention
unmarried women, should kindle their own Chanuka lights.
Interestingly, R. Moshe Harari, in his Mikraei Kodesh -- Hilkhot Chanuka
(addendum 7 pg. 154), cites previously unpublished comments of R. Moshe
Feinstein recalling that women in his hometown in Europe did, in fact,
light nerot Chanuka, with a berakha, contrary to the impression given
by the Mishna Berura. His wife, however, was not accustomed to lighting
nerot Chanuka, and R. Feinstein did not impose his customs (including that
of women lighting nerot Chanuka) on his wife. In any event, R. Feinstein
observed that women in America are not accustomed to lighting ner Chanuka.
As women are equally obligated in the mitzva of ner Chanuka, a woman
may fulfill her family's obligation to light.
NER ISH U-VEITO -- HOW MANY LIGHTS?
One of the great difficulties in understanding the mitzva of ner Chanuka
relates to the following Talmudic passage (Shabbat 21b):
"Our Rabbis taught: The precept of Chanuka [demands] one light for a
man and his household (ner ish u-veito); the zealous ('mehadrin')
[kindle] a light for each member [of the household]; and the
extremely zealous ('mehadrin min ha-mehadrin') -- Beit Shammai
maintain: On the first day, eight lights are lit, and thereafter,
they are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day,
one is lit, and thereafter, they are progressively increased..."
First, the Talmud presents an unprecedented three-tiered description of
this mitzva's performance: ner ish u-veito, mehadrin and mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin. This itself requires some explanation, as we discussed in
an earlier shiur (http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/han70-db.htm).
Second, the relationship between the levels of mehadrin and mehadrin
min hamehadrin is unclear, and subject to considerable debate, as we
shall see.
Let us begin, however, by posing a more basic question, one which pertains
to numerous halakhic issues, such as how many candles one lights, where
one should light, whether and how a guest should light, and whether a
traveler or somebody with no home should light.
The Gemara mentions an obligation imposed upon a person (ish) and
his household (beito). This description gives rise to the question of
whether we should view the mitzva as a personal obligation (chovat gavra)
which one performs (maybe only preferably) at the entrance of his house,
or as an obligation upon a house (chovat ha-bayit), similar to mezuza.
On the one hand, the Gemara may be instructing us that one fulfills his
individual mitzva by having a candle lit at the entrance to the house. The
fact that the lighting should take place in the context of one's house,
according to this perspective, is but one detail of the mitzva, which is
defined essentially as a personal obligation. Conceivably, if we accept
this approach, we may even allow for fulfilling this mitzva without
a house (as we will discuss), since the house is not essential to the
basic definition of the obligation.
On the other hand, one might suggest that the mitzva is essentially
defined as requiring candle lighting in one's home. The Rambam,
for example, writes (Hilkhot Megilla Ve-Chanuka 4:1), "The mitzva is
such that EACH AND EVERY HOUSE SHOULD LIGHT ONE CANDLE, regardless of
whether the inhabitants of the house are many, or even just one..." The
Rambam describes the mitzva as a requirement incumbent upon the house,
rather than an obligation upon individuals. Similarly, the Ran (Rif,
Shabbat 10a) understood a comment in the Gemara as proposing that guests
be entirely exempt from ner Chanuka, just as a guest is not obligated
to affix his own mezuza in someone else's house. This notion certainly
reflects a perspective that views the obligation as essentially defined
as an obligation upon the home.
MEHADRIN AND MEHADRIN MIN HA-MEHADRIN
This question may also affect our understanding of the mehadrin and
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin levels of ner Chanuka.
The Gemara (Shabbat 21b) establishes that beyond the basic obligation
of ner ish u-veito, there are two higher levels at which this mitzva
may be performed: mehadrin and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, the latter of
which is subject to a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
The Gemara teaches that "the zealous ('ha-mehadrin') [kindle] a light
for each member [of the household]..." This seems to mean that the
ba'al ha-bayit (head of the household) lights on each night the number
of candles corresponding to the members of the household. While one may
view the attention to the individuals as evidence of a chovat gavra,
one may also simply understand that the mehadrin house must also reflect
its inhabitants.
The Gemara continues:
"The extremely zealous (ha-mehadrin min ha-mehadrin) -- Beit Shammai
maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit, and thereafter they
are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is
lit, and thereafter they are progressively increased..."
As for the basis of their debate, the Gemara explains:
"'Ulla said: Two Amora'im in the West [Israel], R. Yose b. Abin and
R. Yose b. Zebida, differ therein. One maintains that Beit Shammai's
reason is that it shall correspond to the days still to come, and
that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that have
passed; but another maintains that Beit Shammai's reason is that it
shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival [Sukkot], whilst
Beit Hillel's reason is that we advance in [matters of] sanctity,
but do not reduce ('ma'alin ba-kodesh ve-ein moridin')."
The Rishonim differ as to how to understand the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin
standard. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b), as well as the Ra'ah (cited in the Ran,
Shabbat 21b) and others, understood that the Gemara establishes two
types of hidur ("enhancement"): One, the mehadrin, dictates lighting in
a manner which reflects the number of inhabitants of the house, while the
other, the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, requires lighting in a manner which
reflects the ascending or descending days of Chanuka. In other words,
the "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin" is not an extension of the mehadrin,
but rather stands independently of the mehadrin and expands the basic
mitzva of "ner ish u-veito."
Furthermore, Tosafot note that if the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin would
expand the mehadrin, the entire purpose of these higher standards would
be undermined. Since the number of candles would correspond to both
the members of the household and the number of days that have passed,
observers would be unable to determine the number of members of the
household, or the number of days that have passed. Tosafot therefore
maintain that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is intended to reflect the
number of days instead of (and not in addition to) the members of the
household, as reflecting the number of days emphasizes the enormity
of the miracle of the oil, and. is a greater form of pirsum ha-nes
(publicizing the miracle). It would seem, however, that if one could
light in a manner that would accurately reflect the amount of days,
as well as the number of residents, that would certainly be preferred;
we will return to this point shortly.
The Rambam (4:3) records the following as "the simple custom in all our
cities in Sefarad":
"... All the members of the house light one candle on the first
night, and they continually add a candle each night until they have
lit eight lights, regardless of whether the members of the household
are numerous, or even one..."
This custom corresponds with Tosafot's view, that the mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin does not include the mehadrin, meaning, each household -- and
not each person -- lights the number of candles corresponding with the
number of the day. (Granted, the opening phrase in this passage -- "All
the members of the house..." -- give rise to some confusion and require
some explanation, but this lies beyond the scope of our discussion.)
The Rambam himself (4:2), however, as well as R. Yohanatan of Lunel (Ran,
Shabbat 21b) and the Ritva (Shabbat 21b), disagree. The Rambam explains
that while the mehader et ha-mitzvot ("one who performs the mitzvot in
a beautified manner) lights the number of candles corresponding to the
number of household members, one who wishes to "beautify the mitzvot even
more, and fulfill the mitzva in the optimal way," also calculates the
night of Chanuka. Therefore, he continues, if there are ten members of
the household, the ba'al ha-bayit lights ten candles on the first night,
while on the eighth night he will light eighty. Tosafot, as we noted
above, rejects this option, as one who sees these lights cannot readily
discern between the amount of household members and the number of nights.
In summary, while Tosafot prefer to publicize that the miracle lasted
for eight days, the Rambam views the additional lights, which reflect
multiple nights and household members, as the hidur.
The Maharil (Rabbi Yaakov b. Moshe Moellin, 1360-1427) records (Teshuvot
145) the prevalent custom -- presumably among German communities --
for each individual to light nerot Chanuka. This practice seems to imply
that the mitzva of ner Chanuka, or at least the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin,
focuses upon the lighting of the individual, or what we referred to as
a chovat gavra.
PRACTICAL HALAKHA
The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 671:2), rules in accordance with the practice
documented by the Rambam, and the position of Tosafot, that the ba'al
ha-bayit should light one candle each night, corresponding to the number
of nights, concluding with eight candles on the eighth night.
The Rema, on the other hand, writes:
"Some say that each member of the house should light, and that is
the common custom. [But] each person should be careful to place his
lights in a designated place, so that it should be clear how many
candles are being lit..."
Some Acharonim (see, for example, Taz 671:1) question how the Shulchan
Arukh, which represents the Sephardic tradition, rules in accordance
with Tosafot, while the Rema, the voice of Ashkenzic practice, favors
the Rambam's position.
In truth, the Shulchan Arukh's ruling follows the prevalent custom of
the cities of Sefarad as recorded by the Rambam, and it should therefore
come as no surprise.
[Regarding single Sephardic soldiers, or older students studying in
yeshivot or university, some authorities (R. Ovadya Yosef, Yechave Da'at
6:43, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shalmei Moed, pg. 204) rule that they
fulfill their obligation through the lighting in their homes. R. Auerbach
even believes that overseas students whose parents light in a different
time zone should still refrain from lighting. R. Yosef disagrees (see
Chazon Ovadya Chanuka, pg.150). Others (R. Ovadiah Hadayah, Yaskil
Avdi, 7, pg. 386, Chazon Ish and R. Elyashiv, Yemi Hallel Ve-hodaya,
pg. 277, R. Shalom Mashash and R. Avrum Shapiro (Peninei Halacha Zemanim,
pg. 281) maintain that single soldiers and students (after high school)
are considered independent and must light on their own.]
However, the Rema, who rules that the number of lights should correspond
to the number of residents as well as to the number of days, indeed
seems to accept the Rambam's ruling over that of Tosafot, in contrast
to the Rema's procedure of codifying the Ashkenazic custom.
A closer examination of the Rema's ruling reveals that it does not
actually reflect the view of the Rambam. For one thing, the Rambam rules
that the ba'al ha-bayit lights all of the candles, while the Rema insists
that each individual lights in his/her own separate place. Secondly,
in his earlier work, Darkhei Moshe (a commentary to the Tur), the Rema
cites the Maharal of Prague as commenting that since we no longer light
outside, it is possible for each person to light in a separate area, such
that both the number of days and number of residents can be signified
through the lighting.
In other words, the Rema rules according to Tosafot, who would
certainly agree that when possible, one should fulfill BOTH types of
hidur: reflecting the number of inhabitants, and the number of days. He
therefore rules that nowadays, when this dual hidur is attainable, it
becomes the ideal arrangement for lighting. (Incidentally, the Rema's
interpretation of Tosafot strongly suggests an emphasis upon the chovat
gavra, as opposed to an obligation upon the household; we shall develop
this point further a bit later.)
The Acharonim raise numerous questions on the Rema's ruling. For example,
once one person has lit, and all members of the household have fulfilled
the basic obligation of ner ish u-veito, how is it possible for other
members of the household to light with a berakha? While some (see Peri
Megadim M"Z 671:1, R. Akiva Eiger -- Mahadura Tinyana 13) suggest that one
should have in mind not to fulfill the mitzva through another person's
lighting, others (see Sefat Emet 21b) disagree. If so, then how does
one recite a blessing upon a hidur mitzva if he has already fulfilled
the basic obligation?
The Griz (R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik) explained that the Rema and
the Rambam perhaps disagree concerning the status of a hidur mitzva
that is not performed as part of the basic mitzva. The Rema apparently
assigns great significance to a hidur mitzva and therefore sanctions
reciting a berakha when performing the hidur, even when it is performed
independently.
Alternatively, we might suggest that the Talmud here establishes three
distinct ways to perform the mitzva, such that one who fulfills the
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin has not simply "glorified" the mitzva, but has
rather fulfilled the mitzva of reflecting the number of days and the
house's residents through the number of lights. Since he fulfills an
entirely new mitzva by lighting the extra candles, he recites a berakha
despite the fact that he has already fulfilled the basic obligation.
The Acharonim raise a number of other interesting questions relevant to
the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, as well. For example, may one who began
lighting without reciting the berakha subsequently recite the berakha and
continue lighting? And do the halakhot regarding personal use of the light
of the ner Chanuka apply to the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin candles? These
questions, too, touch upon the issue of whether we should view the
extra candle as integral to the basic obligation, or as fulfilling a
separate mitzva.
Interestingly, the Mishna Berura (672:6) cites a debate between the Beit
Yosef (citing the Orchot Chayim) and the Peri Megadim as to whether one
who lights one candle with a berakha, and later receives additional
candles, should light the new candles with a berakha. The Beit Yosef
implies that if one did not have the additional candles in mind when he
recited the berakha, he should recite the berakha again upon reciting
the new lights. The Peri Megadim disagrees. The Magen Avraham (651:23)
discusses this issue and rules in accordance with the Beit Yosef.
This debate should, seemingly, also affect the case of who speaks after
lighting the first candle. Here, too, we might assume, the Beit Yosef
would require a new berakha, while the Peri Megadim would not. However,
the Peri Megadim elsewhere (Rosh Yosef, Shabbat 23a) writes that one who
speaks between lighting the first and second candles should, in fact,
recite another berakha. The later Acharonim attempt to reconcile these
seemingly contradictory rulings. In any event, these issues reflect the
basic question of whether the additional lights constitute an integral
part of the basic mitzva, or are merely a hidur, a means of enhancing
the mitzva, but not part of the mitzva itself.
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 215
***************************************
--Boundary_(ID_FudFlZs5eywU4lBwnv5g0w)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
<font size=3D3>Send Avodah mailing list submissions to<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
avo...@lists.aishdas.org<br><br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org" eudora=
=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org<;br>
</a>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org<br><br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
avodah-ow...@lists.aishdas.org<br><br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."<br><br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br><br>
1. Re: Kiddushin and bigamy (Doron Beckerman)<br>
2. Re: Unusual Chanukah Minhag? (Arie Folger)<br>
3. Re: wife lighting menora (kennethgmil...@juno.com)<br>
4. Re: Kiddushin and Bigamy (Hankman)<br>
5. Re: Kiddushin and Bigamy (Zev Sero)<br>
6. Re: wife lighting menora (Akiva Blum)<br>
7. Re: Afikomon (Micha Berger)<br>
8. Re: washing hands (Micha Berger)<br>
9. Re: washing hands (Akiva Blum)<br>
10. Re: kiddushin and bigamy (Simon Montagu)<br>
11. Re: wife lighting menora (kennethgmil...@juno.com)<br>
12. Re: wife lighting menora (Micha Berger)<br><br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:06:57 +0200<br>
From: Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com><br>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and bigamy<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<AANLkTim3Ea_jDs69RUwjj6tq=3DD-gbMzzxwLY4NrKn...@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"<br><br>
You are mekadesh k'das Moshe V'yisrael means that you accept that when
they<br>
want to be mafki'a (such as when you deliver a get which is kosher<br>
miderabanan) they can, not that when you don't fulfill some takanah that
it<br>
isn't chal at all.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL:
<<a=
href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/2=
0101207/22ccfe2b/attachment-0001.htm" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments
/20101207/2=
2ccfe2b/attachment-0001.htm</a>
><br><br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:53:07 +0100<br>
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org><br>
To: simon.wande...@hotmail.com,
<x-tab> </x-tab>Avodah
Torah Discussion Group<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<avo...@aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Unusual Chanukah Minhag?<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<AANLkTi=3D7C6HpF1KDUcqBSDWAxaj+PL_BW2q91PHvs...@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8<br><br>
RSW asked:<br>
> At hadlakas neiros, a crowd gathered, holding towels,<br>
> around the madlik and the menorah. As he is about to<br>
> start lighting, everyone throws the towels at him and the<br>
> menorah.<br>
><SNIP><br>
> 1- Is anyone familiar with this minhag and who it is practiced
by?<br><br>
Yes, Chassidim practice this. They would throw the towel on the<br>
shamash (the person). My late father opposed this practice, so one<br>
year, in the Pzsworzke Stiebl in Antwerp, he collected all the
towels<br>
and hid them, so that the only towel left in the house was the<br>
rebbe's, Reb Itzikl. So, R'Itzikl took his own towel, and personally<br>
threw it on the shamash.<br><br>
Unfortunately, I cannot help you with either sources or a rational.
I<br>
understand Jeckische Minhoggim a lot better. ;-)<br><br>
KT,<br>
-- <br>
Arie Folger,<br>
Recent blog posts on
<a href=3D"http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/<;br>
</a>* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen<br>
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload<br>
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34<br>
* We May Have Free Will, After All<br>
* Equal Justice for All<br>
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany<br>
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r
G"tt?<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:55:48 GMT<br>
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com"
<kennethgmil...@juno.com><br>
To: yda...@gmail.com<br>
Cc: avo...@lists.aishdas.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora<br>
Message-ID: <20101207.065548.1805...@webmail03.vgs.untd.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1<br><br>
I had written:<br>
> and on Chanuka, if the husband is away on a <br>
> business trip, the wife can light for him at home.<br><br>
R' Akiva Blum commented:<br>
> I don't believe this is true. He must light<br>
> for himself where he is with a brocha.<br><br>
Referring to an achsenai, MB 677:2 writes: "The din is that if his
wife lights Ner Chanukah at home, then he is yotzay his chiyuv with her
lighting, even though he is far from home, and he no longer has to join
[with the host] even with prutos."<br><br>
The MB continues with questions about what his and his wife's kavana was,
but that does not detract from the basic din that the wife *can* light
for him.<br><br>
Akiva Miller<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
Weight Watchers&#174<br>
Official Site. Discover Weight Loss Freedom with Weight Watchers
Today.<br>
<a=
href=3D"http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe211e65c9e5aafe1st06vuc=
" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe211e65c9e5aafe1st06vuc<;br>
<br>
<br>
</a>------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:32:35 -0500<br>
From: Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca><br>
To: Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca>, Avodah
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
z...@sero.name<br>
Cc: sal...@videotron.ca<br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and Bigamy<br>
Message-ID: <67C152295C774F69883DF9FC27B22DEF@hankPC><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"cp1255"<br><br>
RZS wrote:<br>
> Oh, I see, you mean a real<br>
> bigamous marriage. Could R Gershom could have decreed that
such<br>
> marriages wouldn't be chal? I don't know; it seems
presumptious for<br>
> a local rav, making a local takanah, to equate himself to the
"rabanan"<br>
> on whose daas one is mekadesh. It makes sense to me that
"das moshe<br>
> veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael, not including local
takanos<br>
> of recent vintage and set to expire soon, which is what R
Gershom's<br>
> cherem was at the time. He wasn't to know that it would spread
to the<br>
> majority of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag.<br><br>
> In any event, though, whether he could or couldn't have made such
a<br>
> tenai, the fact is that he didn't. So the marriage is chal,
and the<br>
> violator is in cherem.<br><br>
The question still makes sense without regard to R. Gershom's Intent<br>
or the original breadth of the Takanah. Now, given that the Takanah
of<br>
R. Gershom has indeed spread far and wide and accepted by the large<br>
majority of Kelal Yisroel, would this be considered "kedas
Mosheh<br>
veYisrael" or not with the appropriate consequence as to whether
the<br>
kedushin is chal?<br><br>
While in your response to me you make a valid point, in that clearly<br>
not every kidushin b'issur is batel adatei d'rabanan, eg., cohen who<br>
marries a gerusha etc. So we now need some very clear guidelines as
to<br>
which cases are included in "daas Moshe v'Yisroel." We now need
to ask<br>
whether nidan didan would or would not be included. I am not
suggesting<br>
I know the answer, just that it is a valid question in my mind. But
if<br>
you definintely feel that nidan didan is not included under "daas
Moshe<br>
v'Yisroel," then you need to explain under what set of guidelines
you<br>
came to this conclusion.<br><br>
Freilach'n Chanuka veKol tuv<br>
Chaim Manaster<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:39:58 -0500<br>
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name><br>
To: Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca><br>
Cc: Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddushin and Bigamy<br>
Message-ID: <4CFE554E.3060...@sero.name><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dwindows-1252; format=3Dflowed<br><br>
On 7/12/2010 10:22 AM, Hankman wrote:<br>
> Given your current response to me, your previous response ("It
makes<br>
> sense to me that "das moshe veyisrael" means the law of
*all* yisrael,<br>
> not including local takanos of recent vintage and set to expire
soon,<br>
> which is what R Gershom's cherem was at the time. ") is simply
a red<br>
> herring and not relevant as even without these points, you now
argue<br>
> that the kedushin would be chal.<br><br>
> You also wrote: "He wasn't to know that it would spread to the
majority<br>
> of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag."<br><br>
> You seem to be soser the idea you espouse in your reply to me.
What<br>
> difference would his knowledge of future acceptance make, as you
argue<br>
> in your reply to me in "getting back to basics."<br><br>
Please reread my original response. I made two points: 1) I'm
skeptical<br>
that R Gershom could, or at least would have felt that he should,
give<br>
his takanah such an extraordinary chizuk as to annul any marriage
that<br>
defies it. 2) Whether he could have done so or not, the fact is that<br>
he didn't.<br><br>
Perhaps, had he known that his little local regulation would turn into
a<br>
major and permanent part of halacha for the majority of Jewry, he
might<br>
have added such a chizuk to it. Or perhaps he wouldn't have, even
with<br>
that knowledge. But the fact is that he didn't have that knowledge,<br>
and therefore I strongly doubt that the thought ever crossed his
mind.<br>
At any rate, we know that he didn't do it, so the whole question is
moot.<br><br>
Your position, on the other hand, seems to be that any kiddushin
that<br>
violates a rabbinic law is automatically invalid, without the need
for<br>
a specific rabbinic takanah to that effect. If that were so, then it<br>
wouldn't matter what R Gershom did. But I don't think that's
tenable,<br>
because if so rabbinic laws would be stronger than Torah laws, since
we<br>
know that many marriages that violate explicit Torah law are still
valid.<br><br>
> While in your response to me you make a valid point, in that
clearly<br>
> not every kidushin b'issur is batel adatei d'rabanan, eg., cohen
who<br>
> marries a gerusha etc. So we now need some very clear guidelines as
to<br>
> which cases are included in "daas Moshe v'Yisroel." We now
need to ask<br>
> whether nidan didan would or would not be included. I am not
suggesting<br>
> I know the answer, just that it is a valid question in my mind. But
if<br>
> you definintely feel that nidan didan is not included under
"daas Moshe<br>
> v'Yisroel," then you need to explain under what set of
guidelines you<br>
> came to this conclusion.<br><br>
My position is that I reject the whole idea that a marriage that is<br>
contrary to "das moshe veyisrael" is invalid. I don't know
where such<br>
an idea can be found. AFAIK the source for your idea is the gemara
in<br>
Gittin, which says that "kedas moshe veyisrael" is equivalent
to "ada`ta<br>
derabanan". But all that means is that the rabbanan are *able* to
say<br>
"no" and invalidate the marriage; not that they have to, let
alone that<br>
their disapproval automatically invalidates the marriage without
their<br>
saying anything at all!<br><br>
Let's forget the complications of R Gershom's situation, and instead<br>
consider laws of Chazal, which are certainly binding on klal
yisrael.<br>
The rabbanan definitely disapproved of anyone who is mekadesh
without<br>
prior arrangement (aka "shiduchin"). They made it very clear
that this<br>
is pritzus, and forbidden, and anyone who does so gets makas mardus.<br>
Could they have gone further and said that such kidushin are invalid<br>
because it's on their da`as and they say "no"? Of course they
could.<br>
But did they? No, they didn't. And therefore to this day such a<br>
kidushin would be valid, and after his makas mardus the chasan can
go<br>
back to his kallah and live happily ever after.<br><br>
-- <br>
Zev Sero<br>
z...@sero.name<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:57:28 +0200<br>
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com><br>
To: <kennethgmil...@juno.com><br>
Cc: avo...@lists.aishdas.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora<br>
Message-ID: <2EF8FB838B7C4491830A2B0E56BED544@userPC><br>
Content-Type:
text/plain;<x-tab> </x-tab>
charset=3D"ISO-8859-1"<br><br>
<br><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: kennethgmil...@juno.com
[<a href=3D"mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com" eudora=3D"autourl">
mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com</a>] <br>
> Sent: Tuesday 07 December 2010 1:56 PM<br>
> To: yda...@gmail.com<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Referring to an achsenai, MB 677:2 writes: "The din is that
<br>
> if his wife lights Ner Chanukah at home, then he is yotzay <br>
> his chiyuv with her lighting, even though he is far from <br>
> home, and he no longer has to join [with the host] even with
prutos."<br>
> <br>
> The MB continues with questions about what his and his wife's <br>
> kavana was, but that does not detract from the basic din that <br>
> the wife *can* light for him.<br>
> <br><br>
I misread what you wrote. But anyway, in that case, they are not the
same.<br>
Neiros Shabbos, he cannot be yotzei with her lighting, and must light
for<br>
himself where he is.<br><br>
Akiva<br><br>
<br><br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:50:35 -0500<br>
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org><br>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Afikomon<br>
Message-ID: <20101207175035.GA...@aishdas.org><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii<br><br>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:08:18PM -0600, Sacks, Avram wrote:<br>
: Greco/Roman culture and given new meaning. Reclining? Well,
that is<br>
: how the citizens of Greece had their feasts, reclining on sofas.
It is<br>
: not a stretch to imagine that the matzah that was eaten as the
dessert<br>
: so that its taste lingered was given a name borrowed from the Greeks
and<br>
: used to connote "after meal entertainment." <br><br>
Perhaps as a general rule, but the argument that afiqoman is an
instance<br>
is not that strong, IMHO. There is a din to leave the taste of the<br>
qorban in your mouth. This turns the qorban, or its zikaron, into a<br>
desert. Particularly if my understanding is correct that people just
ate<br>
a kezayis of qorban pesach, eaten al hasova. So, the notion of
having<br>
a desert predates the Greek, and the Greek would appear to just be a<br>
useful term from the empire -- much like calling the beis din
hagadol<br>
"Sanhedrin".<br><br>
I knew about tying afikoman to the Aramaic "afiqu mina", that
the<br>
afiqoman is the middle matzah which was earlier "removed from
them". Also,<br>
the Chaldian "afiku man" -- dish remover -- ie desert. That
said, the<br>
Greek epikomion is also an oft-cited etymology (Tosafos R' Aqiva
Eiger;<br>
Tif'eres Yisrael, Yachin, #51). According to R' Pinechas Kehati, the
only<br>
real one -- the others being notrikon. And while the Greek literally<br>
translates to simple "that which comes after", I just learned
that in<br>
practice it referred to entertainment after the meal, not food.<br><br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<br><br>
-- <br>
Micha
Berger &nbs=
p;
Brains to the lazy<br>
mi...@aishdas.org are like a
torch to the blind --<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.aishdas.org=A0=A0/" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://www.aishdas.org&;nbsp; </a> a useless burden.<br>
Fax: (270)
514-1507 &n=
bsp;
- Bechinas HaOlam<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:54:11 -0500<br>
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org><br>
To: avodah <avo...@aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] washing hands<br>
Message-ID: <20101207175411.GB...@aishdas.org><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii<br><br>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:59:51AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:<br>
:> In any case, we're also still carrying RET's question... So, don't
use<br>
:> the minimum of water. Instead of using a CI revi'is of 150cc,
use 175.<br>
..<br>
: While I agree with Micha I wonder why even consider the shiur of
CI.<br>
: Many pasken that for a derabbanan we go le-kula with the smaller
shiur...<br><br>
Treating a machloqes like a safeiq is a last-ditch resort, only to be
done<br>
when you can't actually pasqen. Those who say we use a smaller
estimate<br>
for revi'is when finding a minimum for a derabbanan (or a maximum
for<br>
deoraisa) are only those who feel there is nothing compelling about
one<br>
pesaq over another.<br><br>
In any case, as I already mentioned, I find it plausible that
revi'is<br>
mequmetzes means a small estimate for a revi'is. And therefore
invoked<br>
the CI to avoid that entire topic.<br><br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<br><br>
-- <br>
Micha
Berger &nbs=
p;
It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur<br>
mi...@aishdas.org with the
proper intent than to fast on Yom<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.aishdas.org=A0=A0/" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://www.aishdas.org&;nbsp; </a> Kippur with that intent.<br>
Fax: (270)
514-1507 &n=
bsp;
- Rav Yisrael Salanter<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 9<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:35:38 +0200<br>
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com><br>
To: "'A High-Level Torah Discussion Group'"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org>,<x-tab>
</x-tab><mi...@aishdas.org><br>
Cc: 'avodah' <avo...@aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] washing hands<br>
Message-ID: <DC5EC75A247347E9A10D2B03CCB12C33@userPC><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_____ <br><br>
From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
[<a href=3D"mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org" eudora=3D"autourl">
mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org</a>] On Behalf Of Eli Turkel<br>
Sent: Tuesday 07 December 2010 10:00 AM<br><br>
<br>
While I agree with Micha I wonder why even consider the shiur of
CI.<br>
Many pasken that for a derabbanan we go le-kula with the smaller shiur.
Here<br>
we are not talking about even a derabbanan which is a bare reviit. So
IMHO we<br>
should use the smaller shiur of 86cc. In any case the basic reasoning
is<br>
the same as Micha<br>
<br>
The maaseh was in Bnei Brak.<br>
<br>
Akiva <br><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL:
<<a=
href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/2=
0101207/ccabe289/attachment-0001.htm" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments
/20101207/c=
cabe289/attachment-0001.htm</a>
><br><br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 10<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:45:34 -0800<br>
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com><br>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kiddushin and bigamy<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<AANLkTinnbgzfr+s0duB9yCx8c0dtWoPstWpSLo62T...@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"<br><br>
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
wrote:<br><br>
> An interesting story from the last shiur of R. Zilberstein on
medical<br>
> halacha.<br>
><br>
> A man was always making bad investments against the advice of his
wife.<br>
> Finally<br>
> she went to a bet din to demand a divorce which they required the
husband<br>
> to give.<br>
> The man gave the "get" and a little while later remarried.
Much later the<br>
> wife decided to<br>
> remarry and the mesader kiddushin asked to see the "get"
(I guess some copy<br>
> as she<br>
> normally doesnt get the original). He found out that her middle name
was<br>
> left out<br>
> of the :get" and said she needed a new get. When she went to
the first<br>
> husband he said<br>
> for a second "get" he wants $50,000.<br>
><br>
><br>
I always understood that the reason that the wife doesn't get the
original<br>
get was davka to prevent this kind of situation arising.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL:
<<a=
href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/2=
0101207/b7d9acff/attachment-0001.htm" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments
/20101207/b=
7d9acff/attachment-0001.htm</a>
><br><br>
------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 11<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:31:06 GMT<br>
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com"
<kennethgmil...@juno.com><br>
To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora<br>
Message-ID: <20101207.133106.1448...@webmail15.vgs.untd.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1<br><br>
R' Akiva Blum wrote:<br><br>
> Neiros Shabbos, he cannot be yotzei with her lighting, and must<br>
> light for himself where he is.<br><br>
Mechaber 263:6 and MB 263:31 seem to be talking about a husband and wife
who have separate bedrooms in the same house. They write that the husband
does have to light in his room, but that is only to make sure that he
does not trip over sticks and stones; he does *not* say the bracha on
this lighting.<br><br>
Aruch Hashulchan 263:5 amplifies that, and says that if the husband is
out of town and has his own room, then he'll have to light (as above),
and he'll also have to say a bracha on it, because his wife's bracha
cannot go so far as to cover neros which are in another place
entirely.<br><br>
Now, I concede that this makes it *sound* like the husband has a chiyuv
of Ner Shabbos totally independently from his wife, but I don't think it
is so clear, because that is only in the case of where the husband is
both away from home and also has his own room. It is important to look at
the end of that Aruch Hashulchan: "If he does *not* have his own
room, he does not have to light, nor to say the bracha, because he was
mekayem the mitzvah of Ner Shabbos at home via his wife."<br><br>
Now, if indeed he can be mekayem the mitzvah of Ner Shabbos at home via
his wife, then why does he make a bracha in the case where he does have
his own room? I'm not sure, but my guess is that even if there seems to
be two levels for this mitzvah: The full-blown and very famous mitzvah of
Ner Shabbos, and also a mitzvah to have light in one's room. And even if
one is yotzay Ner Shabbos via his wife back home, the mitzvah to have
light in one's room gets a bracha anyway.<br><br>
Thus, I stands by my original comment that regardless of whether husband
and wife are both home, or whether one is at home and the other is away,
the halachos of Ner Chanuka and Ner Shabbos are strikingly similar to
each other (even if they're not totally identical).<br><br>
Akiva Miller<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
SHOCKING: 2010 Honda Civic for $1,734.09<br>
Is this price real? YES! We reveal the TRUTH!<br>
<a=
href=3D"http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe7d85e31275b97bcst04vuc=
" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfe7d85e31275b97bcst04vuc<;br>
<br>
<br>
</a>------------------------------<br><br>
Message: 12<br>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:42:34 -0500<br>
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org><br>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] wife lighting menora<br>
Message-ID: <20101207184234.GA14...@aishdas.org><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii<br><br>
I posted a link to the following earlier, but it seems from<br>
the continued discussion that many people didn't bother chasing<br>
it. So, here's a discussion of who should light from R' David<br>
Brofsky in Gush's VBM's "Chanukah Package" for this year<br>
<<a href=3D"http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chag71/chan71.htm" eudora=3D"aut=
ourl">
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chag71/chan71.htm<;/a>>.<br><br>
My apologies to RMP and others who can't receive more than 32k or so
per<br>
email. (Blackberry has such a limitation, among others.) I'm betting
the<br>
2nd essay in the above link will take up the rest of this digest.
You<br>
can find it there.<br><br>
-Micha<br><br>
NER CHANUKA: WHO LIGHTS AND HOW MANY CANDLES?<br>
Rav David Brofsky<br><br>
In this shiur, we will we discuss a woman's obligation in ner
Chanuka,<br>
and the practical and conceptual importance of this issue. In
addition,<br>
we will endeavor to define the essential mitzva of ner Chanuka and try
to<br>
understand the various opinions that exist regarding the three
different<br>
levels of performing this mitzva enumerated by the Gemara.<br><br>
WOMEN AND NEROT CHANUKA<br><br>
The Gemara (Shabbat 23a) teaches:<br><br>
"Women certainly light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Levi taught: Women<br>
are obligated in ner Chanuka, as they were also in the
miracle..."<br><br>
Apparently, despite the broad exemption from time-bound commandments<br>
("mitzvot aseh she-hazman gerama"), women are obligated to
fulfill the<br>
mitzva of Chanuka lights. Similarly, the Gemara elsewhere teaches
that<br>
women are included in the obligations of mikra megilla (Megilla 4a)<br>
and arba kosot (Pesachim 108a), which are also time-bound
commandments.<br><br>
The Rishonim discuss the precise meaning of the phrase, "af hen
hayu<br>
be-oto ha-nes" -- "they were also in the miracle." Rashi,
in the<br>
context of Megilla reading (Megilla 4a), explains that the decree of<br>
annihilation included both men and women, and hence the mitzvot
enacted<br>
to commemorate the nation's deliverance naturally apply to men and
women<br>
alike. The Rashbam (Tosafot, Megilla 4a, s.v. she-af hen) disagrees,<br>
explaining that in all three instances -- in Persia, in Egypt, and
during<br>
the Greek persecution -- women played a crucial role in Am Yisrael's<br>
salvation. Esther, of course, brought about the deliverance of the
Jewish<br>
people during the time of Achashverosh. The four cups of wine drunk
at<br>
the seder commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, regarding which the
Sages<br>
comment (in Sota 11b and elsewhere), "In the merit of righteous
women,<br>
the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt." As for the
Chanuka<br>
miracle, the Rashbam claims that this miracle was facilitated by
Yehudit,<br>
a beautiful Jewish widow known to us through the apocryphal book of<br>
Judith. Yehudit ingratiated herself to the enemy general,
Holofernes,<br>
and eventually decapitated him while he slept in a drunken stupor.
The<br>
Syrians, having lost their leader, fled, and the Jewish people were
saved.<br><br>
Aside from the questionable historicity of this story, Tosafot note
that<br>
the phrase, "they were ALSO in the miracle" indicates that the
women<br>
were also saved, or, as the Talmud Yerushalmi explains, they were
"also<br>
in the same situation of insecurity" ("safek," or danger),
and not that<br>
they were responsible for the miraculous deliverance in each
occurrence.<br><br>
The Rishonim also discuss the scope and nature of this halakha.
Tosafot<br>
(Pesachim 108b s.v. hayu), for example, question why women are
exempt<br>
from the commandment to dwell in sukkot, given that they, too,
benefited<br>
from God's miraculous protection in the wilderness. Elsewhere
(Megilla<br>
4a ibid.), Tosafot inquire as to why the Talmud does not invoke the
rule<br>
of af hen hayu as the basis for women's inclusion in the mitzva of
matza,<br>
resorting instead to a different source.<br><br>
Interestingly, the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839), in
his<br>
work of responsa (O.C. 185), asks why the Talmud didn't obligate women
to<br>
wear tefillin, which also serve as a reminder for the Exodus from
Egypt.<br><br>
Tosafot (Pesachim 108b) suggest that the principle of af hen hayu
refers<br>
only to women's obligation to perform mitzvot that are of Rabbinic<br>
origin (mi-derabbanan). As such, this rule cannot be applied to
sukka<br>
or matza. Furthermore, they claim that af hen hayu is effective only
in<br>
obligating women on a Rabbinic level, and cannot mandate the
performance<br>
of a mitzva on the level of Torah obligation (mi-de'orayta).<br><br>
Theoretically, it would seem, the principle of af hen, according to<br>
Tosafot, may obligate women to perform any mitzva of Rabbinic origin<br>
instituted to commemorate a miracle experienced equally by
women.<br><br>
Thus, for example, we might consider applying this rule to the
obligation<br>
of shalosh se'udot -- to eat three meals on Shabbat. The Talmud
(Shabbat<br>
117b) infers this requirement from the Torah's threefold use of the
word<br>
"today" (ha-yom) in reference to the manna: "And Moshe
said: Eat it (the<br>
manna) today, for today is Shabbat to God; today you will not find it
in<br>
the field" (Shemot 16:25). The repetition of the word ha-yom
indicated<br>
to Chazal that that one should eat three meals each Shabbat in order
to<br>
commemorate the miracle of the mann. While according to most
opinions,<br>
the obligation to eat three meals on Shabbat is of Rabbinic origin,<br>
the Gemara clearly relates its performance to the miracle of the
mann.<br><br>
Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Ha-yashar, Teshuvot 70) insists that women are<br>
included under this obligation, as they also benefitted from the
miracle<br>
of the mann which the three Shabbat meals are intended to commemorate.
The<br>
Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 291:6) codifies this position, though his
ruling<br>
may be attributed to various different reasons, and does not
necessarily<br>
stem from Rabbeinu Tam's contention (see Mishna Berura 26).<br><br>
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik often cited his father, Rav Moshe
Soloveitchik,<br>
as suggesting a distinction between a mitzva intended to publicize a<br>
miracle (pirsumei nisa), and a mitzva that we perform merely to recall
a<br>
miracle. He explained that the three mitzvot to which the Talmud
applies<br>
the rule of af hen hayu -- ner Chanuka, mikra megilla, and arba kosot
--<br>
are intended for pirsumei nisa, to publicize the given miracle. This<br>
is not the case with the other mitzvot mentioned above. Although by<br>
sitting in a sukka one recalls God's protection of the Jewish people
in<br>
the desert, and the three Shabbat meals commemorate the miracle of
the<br>
mann, their primary function is not to publicize these miracles.<br><br>
"Af hen hayu be-oto ha-nes," R. Moshe Soloveitchik explains,
applies<br>
only to mitzvot of pirsumei nisa, and therefore does not apply to
mitzvot<br>
such as sukka, tefillin and shalosh se'udot, which are not intended
for<br>
the purpose of publicizing a miracle.<br><br>
This approach clearly underscores the special quality of ner
Chanuka,<br>
as a mitzva defined and dictated by its ability to publicize the
miracle.<br><br>
WOMEN AND MEHADRIN<br><br>
The basic mitzva of ner Chanuka is ner ish u-veito (Shabbat 21b),<br>
meaning, that a single light be kindled in the home each night of<br>
Chanuka. The higher level of performance, or mehadrin, requires that<br>
each member of the household light Chanuka candles. The question
arises<br>
as to whether women, especially married women, should kindle their
own<br>
lights, like other members of the household, or whether they should<br>
fulfill their obligation through the lighting of their husbands or
other<br>
family members. As we shall see shortly, this question is only
relevant<br>
according to the Ashkenazic practice, according to which each person<br>
kindles their own lights. According to Sephardic custom only one
person,<br>
usually the head of the household, lights.<br><br>
The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510-1574) writes that one candle<br>
certainly suffices for both husband and wife (Teshuvot Maharshal 85).
The<br>
Eliya Rabba (671) and, later, the Mishna Berura (671:9), explain
that<br>
married women do not light because of the halakhic concept of ishto<br>
ke-gufo ('a man's wife is like himself'). The Eliya Rabba adds that
for<br>
this reason, married women do not light individually to fulfill the<br>
level of mehadrin. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe O.C. 109) notes<br>
that according to this rationale, if the wife had lit Chanuka
candles,<br>
then the husband should not light, unless he specifically had in
mind<br>
not to fulfill his obligation through his wife's lighting (see Rema<br>
677:3). Furthermore, it would seem that according to the Eliya
Rabba,<br>
there is no inherent preference for the husband to light instead of
the<br>
wife, and they may even take turns if they so desire.<br><br>
In any event, the practice among many married women is not to light<br>
Chanuka candles. As noted by many Acharonim, this custom is valid
only<br>
with regard to married women; it would seem that unmarried women and<br>
women whose husbands are not currently at home must certainly light<br>
Chanuka candles.<br><br>
Yet, in many communities it is customary for even single women not
to<br>
light Chanuka candles. Some have suggested that the since this
lighting<br>
should preferably take place outside, and imposing such a requirement
upon<br>
an unmarried girl would violate her "modesty," the custom
developed for<br>
unmarried women not to light at all (Chatam Sofer, Shabbat 21b).
Others<br>
explain that it would be disrespectful for a girl to light given that
her<br>
married mother does not light (Mishmeret Shalom 48:2). Yet a third
theory<br>
claims, quite simply, that since a girl will not light after
marriage,<br>
there is no reason to encourage her to light while still single.
Clearly,<br>
however, a woman living alone must light nerot Chanuka.<br><br>
Rav Soloveitchik, as recorded by R. Hershel Schachter (Nefesh
Ha-Rav,<br>
pg. 226), found it difficult to apply the principle of ishto ke-gufo
to<br>
this mitzva, and therefore ruled that even married women, not to
mention<br>
unmarried women, should kindle their own Chanuka lights.<br><br>
Interestingly, R. Moshe Harari, in his Mikraei Kodesh -- Hilkhot
Chanuka<br>
(addendum 7 pg. 154), cites previously unpublished comments of R.
Moshe<br>
Feinstein recalling that women in his hometown in Europe did, in
fact,<br>
light nerot Chanuka, with a berakha, contrary to the impression
given<br>
by the Mishna Berura. His wife, however, was not accustomed to
lighting<br>
nerot Chanuka, and R. Feinstein did not impose his customs (including
that<br>
of women lighting nerot Chanuka) on his wife. In any event, R.
Feinstein<br>
observed that women in America are not accustomed to lighting ner
Chanuka.<br><br>
As women are equally obligated in the mitzva of ner Chanuka, a woman<br>
may fulfill her family's obligation to light.<br><br>
NER ISH U-VEITO -- HOW MANY LIGHTS?<br><br>
One of the great difficulties in understanding the mitzva of ner
Chanuka<br>
relates to the following Talmudic passage (Shabbat 21b):<br><br>
"Our Rabbis taught: The precept of Chanuka
[demands] one light for a<br>
man and his household (ner ish u-veito); the zealous
('mehadrin')<br>
[kindle] a light for each member [of the household];
and the<br>
extremely zealous ('mehadrin min ha-mehadrin') -- Beit
Shammai<br>
maintain: On the first day, eight lights are lit, and
thereafter,<br>
they are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On
the first day,<br>
one is lit, and thereafter, they are progressively
increased..."<br><br>
First, the Talmud presents an unprecedented three-tiered description
of<br>
this mitzva's performance: ner ish u-veito, mehadrin and mehadrin
min<br>
ha-mehadrin. This itself requires some explanation, as we discussed
in<br>
an earlier shiur
(<a href=3D"http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/han70-db.htm" eudora=3D"autourl=
">
http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/han70-db.htm<;/a>).<br><br>
Second, the relationship between the levels of mehadrin and mehadrin<br>
min hamehadrin is unclear, and subject to considerable debate, as we<br>
shall see.<br><br>
Let us begin, however, by posing a more basic question, one which
pertains<br>
to numerous halakhic issues, such as how many candles one lights,
where<br>
one should light, whether and how a guest should light, and whether
a<br>
traveler or somebody with no home should light.<br><br>
The Gemara mentions an obligation imposed upon a person (ish) and<br>
his household (beito). This description gives rise to the question
of<br>
whether we should view the mitzva as a personal obligation (chovat
gavra)<br>
which one performs (maybe only preferably) at the entrance of his
house,<br>
or as an obligation upon a house (chovat ha-bayit), similar to
mezuza.<br><br>
On the one hand, the Gemara may be instructing us that one fulfills
his<br>
individual mitzva by having a candle lit at the entrance to the house.
The<br>
fact that the lighting should take place in the context of one's
house,<br>
according to this perspective, is but one detail of the mitzva, which
is<br>
defined essentially as a personal obligation. Conceivably, if we
accept<br>
this approach, we may even allow for fulfilling this mitzva without<br>
a house (as we will discuss), since the house is not essential to
the<br>
basic definition of the obligation.<br><br>
On the other hand, one might suggest that the mitzva is essentially<br>
defined as requiring candle lighting in one's home. The Rambam,<br>
for example, writes (Hilkhot Megilla Ve-Chanuka 4:1), "The mitzva
is<br>
such that EACH AND EVERY HOUSE SHOULD LIGHT ONE CANDLE, regardless
of<br>
whether the inhabitants of the house are many, or even just one..."
The<br>
Rambam describes the mitzva as a requirement incumbent upon the
house,<br>
rather than an obligation upon individuals. Similarly, the Ran (Rif,<br>
Shabbat 10a) understood a comment in the Gemara as proposing that
guests<br>
be entirely exempt from ner Chanuka, just as a guest is not
obligated<br>
to affix his own mezuza in someone else's house. This notion
certainly<br>
reflects a perspective that views the obligation as essentially
defined<br>
as an obligation upon the home.<br><br>
MEHADRIN AND MEHADRIN MIN HA-MEHADRIN<br><br>
This question may also affect our understanding of the mehadrin and<br>
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin levels of ner Chanuka.<br><br>
The Gemara (Shabbat 21b) establishes that beyond the basic
obligation<br>
of ner ish u-veito, there are two higher levels at which this mitzva<br>
may be performed: mehadrin and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, the latter
of<br>
which is subject to a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit
Hillel.<br><br>
The Gemara teaches that "the zealous ('ha-mehadrin') [kindle] a
light<br>
for each member [of the household]..." This seems to mean that
the<br>
ba'al ha-bayit (head of the household) lights on each night the
number<br>
of candles corresponding to the members of the household. While one
may<br>
view the attention to the individuals as evidence of a chovat gavra,<br>
one may also simply understand that the mehadrin house must also
reflect<br>
its inhabitants.<br><br>
The Gemara continues:<br><br>
"The extremely zealous (ha-mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin) -- Beit Shammai<br>
maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit, and
thereafter they<br>
are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the
first day one is<br>
lit, and thereafter they are progressively
increased..."<br><br>
As for the basis of their debate, the Gemara explains:<br><br>
"'Ulla said: Two Amora'im in the West [Israel],
R. Yose b. Abin and<br>
R. Yose b. Zebida, differ therein. One maintains that
Beit Shammai's<br>
reason is that it shall correspond to the days still
to come, and<br>
that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the
days that have<br>
passed; but another maintains that Beit Shammai's
reason is that it<br>
shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival
[Sukkot], whilst<br>
Beit Hillel's reason is that we advance in [matters
of] sanctity,<br>
but do not reduce ('ma'alin ba-kodesh ve-ein
moridin')."<br><br>
The Rishonim differ as to how to understand the mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin<br>
standard. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b), as well as the Ra'ah (cited in the
Ran,<br>
Shabbat 21b) and others, understood that the Gemara establishes two<br>
types of hidur ("enhancement"): One, the mehadrin, dictates
lighting in<br>
a manner which reflects the number of inhabitants of the house, while
the<br>
other, the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, requires lighting in a manner
which<br>
reflects the ascending or descending days of Chanuka. In other
words,<br>
the "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin" is not an extension of the
mehadrin,<br>
but rather stands independently of the mehadrin and expands the
basic<br>
mitzva of "ner ish u-veito."<br><br>
Furthermore, Tosafot note that if the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin would<br>
expand the mehadrin, the entire purpose of these higher standards
would<br>
be undermined. Since the number of candles would correspond to both<br>
the members of the household and the number of days that have
passed,<br>
observers would be unable to determine the number of members of the<br>
household, or the number of days that have passed. Tosafot therefore<br>
maintain that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is intended to reflect
the<br>
number of days instead of (and not in addition to) the members of
the<br>
household, as reflecting the number of days emphasizes the enormity<br>
of the miracle of the oil, and. is a greater form of pirsum ha-nes<br>
(publicizing the miracle). It would seem, however, that if one could<br>
light in a manner that would accurately reflect the amount of days,<br>
as well as the number of residents, that would certainly be
preferred;<br>
we will return to this point shortly.<br><br>
The Rambam (4:3) records the following as "the simple custom in all
our<br>
cities in Sefarad":<br><br>
"... All the members of the house light one
candle on the first<br>
night, and they continually add a candle each night
until they have<br>
lit eight lights, regardless of whether the members of
the household<br>
are numerous, or even one..."<br><br>
This custom corresponds with Tosafot's view, that the mehadrin min<br>
ha-mehadrin does not include the mehadrin, meaning, each household --
and<br>
not each person -- lights the number of candles corresponding with
the<br>
number of the day. (Granted, the opening phrase in this passage --
"All<br>
the members of the house..." -- give rise to some confusion and
require<br>
some explanation, but this lies beyond the scope of our
discussion.)<br><br>
The Rambam himself (4:2), however, as well as R. Yohanatan of Lunel
(Ran,<br>
Shabbat 21b) and the Ritva (Shabbat 21b), disagree. The Rambam
explains<br>
that while the mehader et ha-mitzvot ("one who performs the mitzvot
in<br>
a beautified manner) lights the number of candles corresponding to
the<br>
number of household members, one who wishes to "beautify the mitzvot
even<br>
more, and fulfill the mitzva in the optimal way," also calculates
the<br>
night of Chanuka. Therefore, he continues, if there are ten members
of<br>
the household, the ba'al ha-bayit lights ten candles on the first
night,<br>
while on the eighth night he will light eighty. Tosafot, as we noted<br>
above, rejects this option, as one who sees these lights cannot
readily<br>
discern between the amount of household members and the number of
nights.<br><br>
In summary, while Tosafot prefer to publicize that the miracle
lasted<br>
for eight days, the Rambam views the additional lights, which
reflect<br>
multiple nights and household members, as the hidur.<br><br>
The Maharil (Rabbi Yaakov b. Moshe Moellin, 1360-1427) records
(Teshuvot<br>
145) the prevalent custom -- presumably among German communities --<br>
for each individual to light nerot Chanuka. This practice seems to
imply<br>
that the mitzva of ner Chanuka, or at least the mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin,<br>
focuses upon the lighting of the individual, or what we referred to
as<br>
a chovat gavra.<br><br>
PRACTICAL HALAKHA<br><br>
The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 671:2), rules in accordance with the
practice<br>
documented by the Rambam, and the position of Tosafot, that the
ba'al<br>
ha-bayit should light one candle each night, corresponding to the
number<br>
of nights, concluding with eight candles on the eighth night.<br><br>
The Rema, on the other hand, writes:<br><br>
"Some say that each member of the house should
light, and that is<br>
the common custom. [But] each person should be careful
to place his<br>
lights in a designated place, so that it should be
clear how many<br>
candles are being lit..."<br><br>
Some Acharonim (see, for example, Taz 671:1) question how the
Shulchan<br>
Arukh, which represents the Sephardic tradition, rules in accordance<br>
with Tosafot, while the Rema, the voice of Ashkenzic practice,
favors<br>
the Rambam's position.<br><br>
In truth, the Shulchan Arukh's ruling follows the prevalent custom
of<br>
the cities of Sefarad as recorded by the Rambam, and it should
therefore<br>
come as no surprise.<br><br>
[Regarding single Sephardic soldiers, or older students studying in<br>
yeshivot or university, some authorities (R. Ovadya Yosef, Yechave
Da'at<br>
6:43, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shalmei Moed, pg. 204) rule that
they<br>
fulfill their obligation through the lighting in their homes. R.
Auerbach<br>
even believes that overseas students whose parents light in a
different<br>
time zone should still refrain from lighting. R. Yosef disagrees
(see<br>
Chazon Ovadya Chanuka, pg.150). Others (R. Ovadiah Hadayah, Yaskil<br>
Avdi, 7, pg. 386, Chazon Ish and R. Elyashiv, Yemi Hallel Ve-hodaya,<br>
pg. 277, R. Shalom Mashash and R. Avrum Shapiro (Peninei Halacha
Zemanim,<br>
pg. 281) maintain that single soldiers and students (after high
school)<br>
are considered independent and must light on their own.]<br><br>
However, the Rema, who rules that the number of lights should
correspond<br>
to the number of residents as well as to the number of days, indeed<br>
seems to accept the Rambam's ruling over that of Tosafot, in
contrast<br>
to the Rema's procedure of codifying the Ashkenazic custom.<br><br>
A closer examination of the Rema's ruling reveals that it does not<br>
actually reflect the view of the Rambam. For one thing, the Rambam
rules<br>
that the ba'al ha-bayit lights all of the candles, while the Rema
insists<br>
that each individual lights in his/her own separate place. Secondly,<br>
in his earlier work, Darkhei Moshe (a commentary to the Tur), the
Rema<br>
cites the Maharal of Prague as commenting that since we no longer
light<br>
outside, it is possible for each person to light in a separate area,
such<br>
that both the number of days and number of residents can be
signified<br>
through the lighting.<br><br>
In other words, the Rema rules according to Tosafot, who would<br>
certainly agree that when possible, one should fulfill BOTH types of<br>
hidur: reflecting the number of inhabitants, and the number of days.
He<br>
therefore rules that nowadays, when this dual hidur is attainable,
it<br>
becomes the ideal arrangement for lighting. (Incidentally, the
Rema's<br>
interpretation of Tosafot strongly suggests an emphasis upon the
chovat<br>
gavra, as opposed to an obligation upon the household; we shall
develop<br>
this point further a bit later.)<br><br>
The Acharonim raise numerous questions on the Rema's ruling. For
example,<br>
once one person has lit, and all members of the household have
fulfilled<br>
the basic obligation of ner ish u-veito, how is it possible for
other<br>
members of the household to light with a berakha? While some (see
Peri<br>
Megadim M"Z 671:1, R. Akiva Eiger -- Mahadura Tinyana 13) suggest
that one<br>
should have in mind not to fulfill the mitzva through another
person's<br>
lighting, others (see Sefat Emet 21b) disagree. If so, then how does<br>
one recite a blessing upon a hidur mitzva if he has already
fulfilled<br>
the basic obligation?<br><br>
The Griz (R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik) explained that the Rema
and<br>
the Rambam perhaps disagree concerning the status of a hidur mitzva<br>
that is not performed as part of the basic mitzva. The Rema
apparently<br>
assigns great significance to a hidur mitzva and therefore sanctions<br>
reciting a berakha when performing the hidur, even when it is
performed<br>
independently.<br><br>
Alternatively, we might suggest that the Talmud here establishes
three<br>
distinct ways to perform the mitzva, such that one who fulfills the<br>
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin has not simply "glorified" the mitzva,
but has<br>
rather fulfilled the mitzva of reflecting the number of days and the<br>
house's residents through the number of lights. Since he fulfills an<br>
entirely new mitzva by lighting the extra candles, he recites a
berakha<br>
despite the fact that he has already fulfilled the basic
obligation.<br><br>
The Acharonim raise a number of other interesting questions relevant
to<br>
the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, as well. For example, may one who
began<br>
lighting without reciting the berakha subsequently recite the berakha
and<br>
continue lighting? And do the halakhot regarding personal use of the
light<br>
of the ner Chanuka apply to the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin candles?
These<br>
questions, too, touch upon the issue of whether we should view the<br>
extra candle as integral to the basic obligation, or as fulfilling a<br>
separate mitzva.<br><br>
Interestingly, the Mishna Berura (672:6) cites a debate between the
Beit<br>
Yosef (citing the Orchot Chayim) and the Peri Megadim as to whether
one<br>
who lights one candle with a berakha, and later receives additional<br>
candles, should light the new candles with a berakha. The Beit Yosef<br>
implies that if one did not have the additional candles in mind when
he<br>
recited the berakha, he should recite the berakha again upon
reciting<br>
the new lights. The Peri Megadim disagrees. The Magen Avraham
(651:23)<br>
discusses this issue and rules in accordance with the Beit
Yosef.<br><br>
This debate should, seemingly, also affect the case of who speaks
after<br>
lighting the first candle. Here, too, we might assume, the Beit
Yosef<br>
would require a new berakha, while the Peri Megadim would not.
However,<br>
the Peri Megadim elsewhere (Rosh Yosef, Shabbat 23a) writes that one
who<br>
speaks between lighting the first and second candles should, in
fact,<br>
recite another berakha. The later Acharonim attempt to reconcile
these<br>
seemingly contradictory rulings. In any event, these issues reflect
the<br>
basic question of whether the additional lights constitute an
integral<br>
part of the basic mitzva, or are merely a hidur, a means of
enhancing<br>
the mitzva, but not part of the mitzva itself.<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Avodah mailing list<br>
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org" eudora=
=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org<;br><br>
<br>
</a>End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 215<br>
***************************************</font></body>
<br>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_FudFlZs5eywU4lBwnv5g0w)--
--Boundary_(ID_FudFlZs5eywU4lBwnv5g0w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."