Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 053

Friday, December 5 2003

• Seeing each other & Pictures before the Wedding
• posting re:nursing and what fathers can do
• Re: Halachic definition of liquid
• Re: berachah for women
• Re: Tachanun or not
• Re: Molad Marcheshvan
• Re: Re: nursing and what fathers can do
• Re: nursing and what fathers can do
• non-kosher tashmishei mitzvah
• Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: Halachic definition of liquid
• [Areivim] Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: questions re laining
• Re: questions re laining
• Rachel and the Trafim
• Standing/Sitting for the Chupa
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav
• Re: Feeding animals basar bechalav

Does anyone know of any sources that talk about the minhag (ta'ut?) for
chattan and kallah not to see each other for the week before the
wedding? I am interested in sources both in favor of the minhag and
those who think it is not really valid (chukot hagoyim?). What is the
earliest source for this? I was told by someone that in a shiur (and does
not remember the source) he was in that Rav Moshe was quoted as saying
that this was a minhag ta'ut - has anyone else heard of this? Anyone
know where this source is (if it exists)?

Also, does anyone know of sources about taking pictures with the chattan
and kallah together before the wedding? I was told by someone I know
pretty well that Rav Lichtenstein permitted pictures before the wedding
even with chattan and kallah touching, and that Rav Willig, Rav Schachter
and Rav Moshe (ba'al peh, and not in IG"M) all permit pictures before the
wedding. Does anyone know about similar psakim in recent years? Anyone
know of any published teshuvot on the subject.

Sorry to bring up a subject that must come up from time to time, but it
will be shayach for me very soon, b"H. From what I have read and have
been told, it seems that the minhag not to see each other before the
wedding is not found in any halachic sources, seems to be a relatively
recent development, may even be chukot hagoyim and therefore is not the
most important thing to be strict about. And taking pictures would put
a tirchah on guests and decrease the simcha of the chattan and kallah,
then there is no reason not to permit them to take pictures before the
wedding - it should even be encouraged. And with regards to touching
in the pictures (assuming that there is no chupat niddah) there are
no niddah problems and we basically have a situation of pitto be'salo
(they are getting married in a couple of hours) so no reason to prohibit
touching. Does this sound familiar to people?

Thanks,
Yaakov Ellis

(Excerpt from "Contemporary Tzniut," forthcoming in Tradition magazine.)

Mishnah Berurah[i] wrote:
    Even if the woman's way is to cover [hair] only in the marketplace but
    not in [her] house or yard, nevertheless, according to all opinions it
    is in the category of ervah even in the house, and it is forbidden to
    read Shema facing it if [even] part[ii] (miktzat) of it is uncovered.

According to this ruling, even though the woman may go bareheaded in the
privacy of her home without penalty, her husband may not recite Shema,
birkat hamazon or any other blessing or say divrei Torah in her presence
unless she covers her hair. In practice, this makes going bareheaded in
a family setting impossible, particularly at Shabbat meals.

This would also apply to covered parts of the body, as there is no reason
to be more lenient concerning them than concerning hair. Presumably,
however, it only applies when what is covered is covered for reasons
of tzniut and not merely for utilitarian use. For instance, in cold
climates where everyone wears gloves outdoors to keep warm, one would
not claim that women's fingers and hands are, therefore, ervah indoors.

However, even with this qualification the ruling leads to improbable
conclusions. In many Arab countries Jewish women went outside with
their faces veiled, as already noted in the Mishnah[iii]. The veil was
for reasons of tzniut as defined in those societies. Were the faces of
Jewish women, then, considered ervah inside their own homes? This has
never been suggested by anybody.

Moreover, what logic is there for ruling that if a woman covers her
hair in the marketplace, for example for one hour a day (or week),
this alone determines its ervah status for all other hours and places?
This might apply to other women, but not to one's wife, whom he sees
all the time at home with her hair uncovered.

Yad Efraim

The source for Mishnah Berurah's ruling is Yad Efraim, printed in editions
of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim since 1820. In 75:1, Shulchan Aruch wrote
that kriat Shema is permitted in the presence of virgins who customarily
go bareheaded. Magen Avraham[iv] commented:
    [This is] difficult, for in Even haEzer 21:20 [Shulchan Aruch] wrote,
    "Daughters of Israel shall not go bareheaded in the market place,
    whether married or single," and Rambam also wrote this.

Magen Avraham's initial assumption was that the penuyot (unmarried women)
mentioned in Even haEzer are the same as the betulot (virgins) mentioned
in Orach Chayim. On that basis, he pointed to a contradiction: why are
penuyot forbidden to go bareheaded in the marketplace, in Even haEzer,
while in Orach Chayim one is allowed to recite Shema in the presence of
betulot even though they are bareheaded?

Yad Efraim commented on Magen Avraham's difficulty:
    It would seem that it should not be difficult at all, [for we could
    say that] here [in Orach Chaim] where [someone] wants to recite
    Shema in the house or courtyard, there is no prohibition [to do
    so in the presence of bareheaded betulot, as opposed to in the
    marketplace]. Perforce [since Magen Avraham did find it difficult]
    one must say that he is of the opinion that, if so, the same would
    apply even to married women. One is forced to conclude that since
    married women cover [their hair] in the marketplace, it is ervah
    regarding kriat Shema even indoors.

That is to say: Magen Avraham could have resolved the contradiction by
explaining that the uncovered hair of betulot is ervah only in the market
place where hair is customarily covered, but not in a house or yard. Since
he chose not to do so, it must be because he held that what is ervah in
public is ervah in private, and there is no difference between betulot and
married women in this regard. Although even if so, it is unclear why there
should not be a difference between other married women and one's wife.

Such a diuk is a fragile basis for Halachah. It infers from what Magen
Avraham did not say, and one can not be sure that that is what Magen
Avraham meant. Writing after the Mishnah Berurah, other compilers[v]
ignored this Yad Efraim, and its acceptance depends on Mishnah Berurah's
prestige[vi]. In the time of Yad Efraim the question was theoretical, as
most women covered their hair both indoors and out. Those who today cover
their hair indoors when in the presence of strangers but not when alone
with their immediate families, in any case, have not adopted this chumrah.

Resp. Igrot Moshe

Disagreeing on logical grounds but without mentioning either Yad Efraim
and Mishnah Berurah, Resp. Igrot Moshe wrote in Yoreh Deah, part 2,
no. 75:
    Concerning a women's hair with regard to her husband when she is a
    nidah, it is certainly better than her normally covered parts. For
    women who are not stringent like Kimchit but only [observe] what
    is obligatory, and do not cover their hair at home when other men
    are not present-[the fact] that a woman's husband is continously
    famliar with her is a strong argument for not prohibiting it.. In
    principle it stands to reason that, by law, those covered parts that
    the husband is forbidden to gaze at are only those parts that are
    covered at home when only her husband is present, or even when no one
    at all is present, for women get dressed anyway. It makes no sense
    [to say] that the covered parts [at home] are those she covers in
    the marketplace or in the presence of other men when extra tzniut is
    required, although it is good to be stringent in these matters..[vii]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] In 75, sub par. 10.

[ii] According to Hagahot Maimoniot, and equating hair with skin.

[iii] Shabbat 6:6.

[iv] Orach Chayim 75, sub par. 3.

[v] Aruch haShulchan, Be'er Yaakov, Kaf haChayim, etc.

[vi] Another example of a ruling that achieved prominence only because
it was cited by Mishnah Berurah is on the question of a woman reading
the Megillah for other women. See my Equality Lost: Essays in Torah
Commentary, Halacha and Jewish Thought, (Urim, 1999), pp. 58-9.

[vii] Sefer Taharat haBayit, vol. 2, p. 165 cites Resp. Igrot Moshe,
but in the digest at the end of the volume (p. 19) the author's son added
"on condition that he [her husband] not recite a blessing or kriat Shema
facing her." This contradictory proviso represents Mishnah Berurah's
view and not that of Igrot Moshe.

The Toras HaYoledes, based on what the Nishmas Avraham reports in the
name of RSZA, suggests that yogurt is probably considered a liquid.
I am attaching the summary in Piskei Teshuvos of what is considered a
solid and a liquid for Yom Kippur purposes.

[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/liquid.pdf>. -mi]

I'll also add that my previous definition that a liquid is something that
drips is contradicted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav's description of how
a liquid can be turned into a solid in his Seder Birkos HaNehenin 8:8 -
"A liquid that has solidified enough so that it can be eaten loses its
status as a liquid even if it still drips." However, that might just be
regarding a liquid losing its status and not about an original definition
of an item as solid or liquid.

Gil Student

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<<< R Moshe Shulman, who used to be on list, reports that Tzanzer women
don't. And he gave me the Chacham Tzevi as the maqor. ...
A L ... e-friend's Bobover nephew told him that some Bobever women do
say the berakhah for a MASG, some don't.>>>

Chasiddim of Sanzer lineages don't make brochos on MASG (the Chacham
Tzevi is the makor, see also Divrei Chaim o.c. 1:27). Although that is the
general rule, since some women prior to marriage have been accustomed to
making brochos on MASG, some continue even after marriage. While Bobov is
of Sanz lineage, it seems that through the ages this minhag has changed
and most women in Bobov do make brochos on MASG (mainly because of the
different lineages the Bobover Rebbetzins had). I believe that Klausenburg
today is the only Chasidus where almost all the women still don't make
brochos on MASG. (The Klausenburger Rebbetzin did make brochos on MASG,
since she came from Nitra.)

Shmuel Pultman

R'Zev Sero wrote:
<<< I haven't got one available - what does he say, and does he address
the objection above? >>>

Your objection is the same that the Taamei Haminhagim (he doesn't bring
his source but I know I saw it somewhere) has regarding the Mharei Sruk's
rational for not fasting after the molad and using this rational for
the basis of not saying tachnun after the molad.

Notwithstanding the Taamei Haminhagim's objection, there is a minhag
by the Karlin Stoliner Chasidim (Divrei Aharon p213) not to say tachnun
after the molad. The source is based on the Shaarei Hakodesh (commentary
on the Moreh B'etzba siman 176). He explains the reason for the Moreh
B'etzba's statement of not fasting after the molad is because after the
molad we consider it somewhat of a Yom Tov (he cites the sefer Pischei
Olam). So you see, there is a parallel to the reason why we don't say
tachnun on Rosh Chodesh.

Shmuel Pultman 

I wrote <<< The molados can be easily counted back to 8:00:00 AM on Friday
of the Creation week. >>> and I published those calculations in Areivim
Digest V12 #131. Just 3 short paragraphs, copies available on request.

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Now that Seder Olam's dating is commonly
accepted, someone calculated molad tohu based upon some known molad, and
therefore we can compute from that. It's reverse engineered. No details
about ma'aseh bereishis can really be made from molad tohu. Three reasons
for that claim: >>>

Okay. We'll take them one at a time...

<<< 1- It's "hachodesh hazeh lakhem". HQBH gave us the starting molad
of that particular Nissan. >>>

Agreed.

<<< 2- If molad tohu were the molad given miSinai, Seder Olam could have
taken a huge shortcut in calculating the time between ma'aseh bereishis
and matan Torah. >>>

Good point. Maybe Molad Tohu was not known until after Seder Olam did
the math?

<<< 3- If it were min haShamaim, then how could there be a machloqes
tana'im as to which month ma'aseh bereishis occured within? >>>

Good point again. Sounds like we agree that two weeks prior to Yetzias
Mitzrayim, Hashem gave Moshe Rabenu the exact molad of that month.

I think the following conjecture might answer your Point #3:

For the next couple of thousand years, this information was used by the
Beis Din et al to calculate current and future molados for purposes of
keeping the calendar straight. The math they used was simple addition. It
never dawned on anyone to use simple subtraction to work backwards and
see what information might be gleaned from knowing when *past* molados
occurred. Therefore, no one realized that in the year Adam HaRishon was
made, Molad Tishrei happened to occur at exactly 8 AM on a Friday. That
information *might* have resolved the machlokes about Tishrei/Nisan,
but since that information was not available, the machlokes raged on.

Nowadays it seems generally accepted that Bereshis aas in Tishrei, *not*
Nisan. Is it possible that this is a direct result of the Seder Olam's
calculations? Perhaps the machlokes existed only among those who did
not have access to the Seder Olam's calculations, and were therefore
unaware of calculations which would demonstrate that the Molad Tishei
was on a Friday.

(Hmmm, according to those who held Bereshis to have been in Nisan, does
that mean davka Rosh Chodesh Nisan? And would that Rosh Chodesh Nisan
have to have been a Friday? I think it is worth noting that 6 molados
total 25 weeks, 2 days, and about 4 hours. That means that the molad
of the previous Nisan would have been around 4 am Wednesday, and the
following Nisan would have been around noon on Sunday.)

I anticipate that some might bristle at my suggestion that no one had
thought of using molad calculations as a way to maintain the accuracy of
year-calendars. But it seems to me that if they *had* thought of this,
then a lot of messes could easily have been avoided. See, for example,
Megillah 11b-12a, where a tremendous amount of effort is spent to
straighten out a timeline lasting only 70 years, where the raw data says
"A was king for X years", and "B was king for Y years", and the numbers
fail to add up because they overlapped when the new king took over in
the middle of the year. You don't need to look at the molados for this,
it suffices to keep track of the months in which an event occurred, but
(it seems to me) they simply did not bother to do this.

I often wonder if the Seder Olam's calculations might suffer from the
same kind of inaccuracy. What makes us so sure that Avraham Avinu was
born in 1948 after creation? With twenty generations between Adam and
him, the rounding error could have accumulated to five years or more in
either direction. Probably not, I'll admit, but certainly one or two
is possible! And with all the calculations *after* Avraham, up to the
days of the Seder Olam, and it turns out that today could be not 5764,
but anywhere from 5754 to 5774, or even further off target.

Now, add in the famous "168 missing years", and it could very well be
that all our calculations are worthless, and Bereshis really WAS in
Nisan!!!

Akiva Miller

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> True. OTOH, AIUI the old Sfardi minhag was that the couple had only
> one bed and during nidus the husband slept on the floor!

This may be true in some places but in other Sefardi homes the minhag
was different:

Many Sefardim keep halachot that are connected with Keduashat Mikdash
VeKodashav. In this case, the single bed would be Tameh and make the
husband Tameh if the wife slept in it when she was Niddah.

So, there was one large bed, and when the wife was nidah she slept on
a lower bed that was usually stored under the regular bed.

At the end of Niddah part of the ritual had to do with a true "spring
cleaning" (mattresses, blankets etc.), though I don't know if this part
has anything to do with hilchot Tum'a.

B"H for wide double beds <g>.

Shoshana L. Boublil

RAM wrote
> I'll conclude with Rav Eider's Halachos of Niddah, page 249:
> <<< When she is nursing and part of her body [is or] becomes uncovered,
> he must be careful not to gaze. >>> (Brackets his.)

RCS commented:
>Or that he's drawing a distinction between looking (short time) and
>gazing (staring, longer time). I would say that he is permitting
>looking that is short and incidental (like when the two of you are in
>your own beds and your husband happens to awaken and see you) as
>opposed to gazing or staring which is longer term and possibly
>(probably) more purposeful.

While R. Eider doesn't explain himself on p. 249, when he first
discusses the issue on pp. 134-5, he is quite clear in footnote 31
(half-way through) that he distinguishes between histaklus and re'iah,
and he cites a good number of sources.

When I got married, I was told that my wife and I could get dressed in the
same room when she is a niddah. I was told that this is permitted so long
as I make sure not to gaze intently. A friend of mine who is more charedi
was told that he should not be in the room when his wife gets dressed.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Someone expressed puzzlement to me regarding the fact that the techeles
used for taleisim comes from a non-kosher animal (although this itself is
unclear - see Encyclopedia Talmudis for some opinions that the Chilazon is
plant life). I found a bit of halachic discussion in the Torah Temimah's
pirush in the beginning of P' Terumah, based on the Gemarah (shabbos
108a) regarding tefillin being written only on kosher animals' hides.
I was wondering if anybody had any other Mar'eh Mekomos, especially ones
with a more philosophical bent (i.e., is there a message in the fact
that we can use non-kosher source for tashmishei mitzvah. Also, if any
body knows wether the techeles is actually assur , or whether it might
be comparable to honey, which is kosher despite its non-kosher origins.

Thank You,
MS

[From Areivim. -mi]

RMB wrote:
>> If the meat is from a tahor species.

RAA
> Isn't this a machlochet?

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

See the intro of the Pri Megadim to YD Hil. Bb'H, where he discusses the
"nequdah niflaah" of Rambam.

Kol Tuv,
Arie Folger

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

But "ein issur 'hal 'al issur" would only apply if a Jew ate it --
that wouldn't help with a dog.

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

(When our dog started licking out an old cheese container after eating
some meat, one of our kids said "stop him, he's fleishigs")

Akiva

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:29:23PM -0600, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
: I'll also add that my previous definition that a liquid is something that
: drips is contradicted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav's description of how
: a liquid can be turned into a solid in his Seder Birkos HaNehenin 8:8 -
: "A liquid that has solidified enough so that it can be eaten loses its
: status as a liquid even if it still drips." However, that might just be
: regarding a liquid losing its status and not about an original definition
: of an item as solid or liquid.

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

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

Me:
:> If the meat is from a tahor species.

RAA:
:> Isn't this a machlochet?

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

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

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

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

> The rest of your post might qualify as an argument for why halakhah
> must posit that devarim shebeleiv einam devarim. It's just not doable
> to have the full peshat of a pasuq. As for derashah -- I'm not sure
> that's part of leining at all.

Now, when you answered my "smallest room" questions (Avodah 8:28) you
didnt use the "einam devarim" answer. You said:
> There is the qedushah of the sheim, which is a halachic status, and the 
> aggadic qedushah caused by someone thinking about the ideas.

Apparently, we (I believe you and similar reactions reflect a trend in
thought) think devarim shebeleiv there are indeed devarim. In both these
cases, though, the limits of thought are strained. The thinking person is
told to stop thinking about x, which is difficult. Does the thought retain
holiness, or is it unnecessary and counterproductive to the associated
activity? Derash may not be "part of leining" but are you saying it is
irrelevant whether one thinks about it or not (forget for the moment the
dramatization of it)? Does any (knowledgeable) lainer *not* think e.g.
bi-shene yitsrekha when they read be-khol levavkha? Is that something
that must be avoided?(I ask out of ignorance, not to further any agenda)

> Which brings me to my last point: While I understand the desire to
> lein in a way that maximizes the impact of the story, I'm not sure
> that's the point of trup. This is TSBK, the package is as significant
> as the content. There is a power to chanted text. While the chant
> should match the semantics, choosing dramatic tone over chant might be
> playing down the textual, bikhtav, aspect of the experience.

I'm not sure I follow you or your definition of chant. I dont intend for 
one to choose "dramatic tone over chant." The two are not mutually 
exclusive. I do wonder though if lainers should not be chosen from among 
only those who, like hazzanim on yamim noraim, are baale mikra or zaken 
ve-ragil be-mikra. It just seems otherwise that their reading plays "down 
the textual, bikhtav, aspect of the experience" for those who listen (and 
care about such things).

> Also, much of Torah has little naarative to dramatize.

True enough, so consider the questions relevant only for those sections
that do. But I do think a creative lainer could dramatize a reading
of korbanot etc also (I dont claim to know how to do that, but, then,
I'm not creative).

yd

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:04:19PM -0500, Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:
:> The rest of your post might qualify as an argument for why halakhah
:> must posit that devarim shebeleiv einam devarim. It's just not doable
:> to have the full peshat of a pasuq. As for derashah -- I'm not sure
:> that's part of leining at all.

: Now, when you answered my "smallest room" questions (Avodah 8:28) you didnt
: use the "einam devarim" answer. You said:
:> There is the qedushah of the sheim, which is a halachic status, and the
:> aggadic qedushah caused by someone thinking about the ideas.

: Apparently, we (I believe you and similar reactions reflect a trend in
: thought) think devarim shebeleiv there are indeed devarim....

"Mitzvos einum tzericho kavanah" but of course are better with. "Devarim"
is a discussion of that which causes a chalos. The trend toward importance
of devarim shebaleiv is a realization that there is more to yahadus than
halakah and chalos. That there is both the halachic chalos of something
being qodesh and the aggadic qedushah. I would not dare a shift in
defining the notion of chiyuv.

I was trying to say that since thought is hard to pin down, it's
impossible to make another's kiyum dependent upon one person's thought.
Particularly dependent upon the kiond of distinctions you're trying
to make.

:> Which brings me to my last point: While I understand the desire to
:> lein in a way that maximizes the impact of the story, I'm not sure
:> that's the point of trup. This is TSBK, the package is as significant
:> as the content. There is a power to chanted text. While the chant
:> should match the semantics, choosing dramatic tone over chant might be
:> playing down the textual, bikhtav, aspect of the experience.

: I'm not sure I follow you or your definition of chant. I dont intend for
: one to choose "dramatic tone over chant." The two are not mutually
: exclusive...

I'm not sure how describe what I'm thinking of to someone who doesn't
do hispa'alus or hibonenus.

Let me continue thinking about how to relay it.

-mi

--
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

Anyone have any ideas why Rachel didn't just bury the trafim in some
out-of-the-way place along their trip rather than keeping them so that
she still had them when her father arrived? B'pashtus, had she buried
them along the way Yaakov's curse (see Rashi there) would not have been
chal on her.

 - Carl

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

Rav Asher Weiss' shiur last night was on Birkas Chasanim. Among many other
m'koros, he brought from the Knesses HaGdola in EH 62 (I have not seen
any of the m'koros inside; this is all based on my notes) that everyone
is supposed to stand for Birkas Chasanim (i.e. Sheva Brachos - or Sheish
plus Borei Pri HaGefen if there is wine - see the Rambam in Hilchos Ishus
10:3-4). He said that the Makneh holds that this is a din in kavod to the
chosson as a melech, and that therefore the chosson cannot be mochel to
allow people to sit during the Sheva Brachos (under the chupa - I don't
think he was also including the Sheva Brachos during bentching). Rav Weiss
was melamed zchus on those who sit during the chupa by saying that even
though we hold chosson domeh l'melech, the chosson cannot exercise the
prerogatives of a melech during the Shivas Ymei HaMishte (for example, he
can't be poretz gader), and that therefore maybe the Makneh is going too
far in saying that the chosson cannot be mochel to allow people to sit.

But I was left with the impression that l'chatchila everyone should
stand for the Sheva Brachos under the chupa....

-- Carl

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

On 4 Dec 2003 at 21:37, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> Yes. According to Rambam, the meat of a neveilah wouldn't come under the 
>> prohibition of Bb'H, as even then ein issur 'hal 'al issur.

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

Why? If it's YOUR dog and your responsibility for feeding him, wouldn't
that be an additional type of hana'a beyond the general issur of Bb"H
on you?

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

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

If the dog only ate outside your backdoor, and you could be reasonably
sure that he's clean before coming into the house, would you give him
chametz b'Pesach? Why (not)?

-- Carl (who never knew that there were Bb"H issues with dog food - 
we had (small) dogs when I was a teenager)

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:07:36AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: If the dog only ate outside your backdoor, and you could be reasonably
: sure that he's clean before coming into the house, would you give him
: chametz b'Pesach? Why (not)?

1- Issur gneivah. It can't be /your/ chameitz.

2- If you own the dog, then it eating the food might be a qinyan.

3- Also, hacing something with which to feed your animals is hana'ah.
The gemara assumes this WRT terumah.

:-)BBii
-mi

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

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


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