Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 055

Tuesday, December 9 2003

• Re: Pictures Before Wedding (was: Must be moicheh)
• Honoring Parents Who Are Abusive
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Berachos 47a
• Re: Standing/Sitting for the chupa
• Bracha acharona (was "Halachic definition of liquid")
• ends of bread
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Rachel and the Trafim
• Re: Must be moicheh
• Re: Seeing each other & Pictures before the Wedding
• Re: Pictures Before Wedding (was: Must be moicheh)

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

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

Kol sheken it's assur!!! Unless there is a complete nissuin, 7 brachos  and
kesuva and the whole works...it's assur. Chazal were just extending the
regular issur pnuya to an arusa.

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

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

If there is a minhag hamakom, then the Rav's personal minhag avos is
irrelevant. I do agree that there may be many places where this minhag
did not catch on.

I received this from the woman who runs the Awareness Center - if 
anyone R"L needs to be in touch with her, I can help you do that. I 
thought that the halachic analysis would be of interest to the list 
(and hopefully this time what Micha gets will be the text version). 

-- Carl

for more information on this topic go to: 
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/honoringparents
----------------------------

Honoring Parents Who Are Abusive
(C) (2003) Benzion Sorotzkin, Psy.D.
<http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/honoringparents>

As a clinical psychologist in the frum community I have frequently been
asked by patients to address the question of the obligation to honor
abusive parents. As a result, I have researched the issue and have
discussed it with some prominent Rabbonim. I would like to share some
of what I have learned with other clinicians and anyone else who needs
to address this issue.

It goes without saying that kibbud av va'eim is a very important and
complex mitzvah. Any particular situation will involve specific clinical
and halachic issues that have to be evaluated by a knowledgeable Rov
for specific guidance. It does help, however, if the questioner is as
knowledgeable as possible about the issues involved. It is for that
reason that I would like to share with the readers some interesting and
not so well known dimensions of this issue.

Talmud Kiddushin 31a

A frequently quoted Talmudic passage regarding the extent to which one
is obligated to honor even an abusive parent is the story in Kiddushin
(31a) where a Roman officer is praised for maintaining his composure
even after his mother tore his clothes off and spit in his face in
public. Unfortunately, the comment of the Tosafos there that, according
to the Midrash, the mother in the story was meturefes b'daata (e.g.,
insane or suffering from Alzheimer's disease) is usually not cited. This
fact certainly puts the story in a very different light. Certainly, an
Alzheimer's patient cannot be held responsible for such behavior. (Yet,
it was terribly embarrassing to the son and therefore he is commended for
remaining passive. Anyone who has cared for such a patient will testify
as to how difficult it is not to respond harshly). It is unfortunate that
this Gemara is cited as evidence that a child is required to passively
submit to chronic abuse by a parent (who is not meturefes b'daata)
in the name of kibbud av va'eim!

The well-known commentary on the Talmud, the Yam Shel Shlomo ( R' Shlomo
Luria, the Maharshal), cites the Tosafos and adds (free translation):

I agree that this mother must have been meturefes b'daata since this
story is cited in order to teach us the laws of kibbud av va'eim and
if she wasn't meturefes b'daata the son would be permitted to protest
in order to prevent his mother from causing him financial harm and
certainly he can prevent her from causing him bodily harm. And even
if she had already harmed him he can sue for damages in bais din'.. So
we must say that she was meturefes b'daata and that's why he couldn't
protest and that's why he didn't rebuke ["go'ar"] her [the implication
is that if she wasn't meturefes b'daata the son would be permitted to
protest and rebuke her in order to prevent her attack].

The Yam Shel Shlomo then comments on the Tur who also cites this Gemara
(without the qualification that the parent was meturefes b'daata):

This ruling of the Tur [that one should remain passive in response to
such a parental attack] must be referring to a situation where he is
unable to protest because it is already after the fact, and therefore
he shouldn't insult [ kelimah] or rebuke his parent.

We see that this widely quoted event that supposedly mandates that
children need to passively submit to chronic abuse, is in fact limited
to where the parent is insane or where it's after the fact.

The sefer Kibbud Av Va'eim (Rabbi Hillel Litwack, p. 32) asks how a
child can permit his parent to violate a Torah law by submitting to
being hit and embarrassed in public by his parent. He also suggests
that the child is not even permitted to be mochel [to allow, to forgive]
the parent since a person is not permitted to harm himself.

Likewise it's possible that one is not permitted to allow a parent
to embarrass him in public since it is comparable to murder. He also
concludes that it must be after the fact. Rabbi Litwack also asks why
the Mechaber doesn't discuss the issue if the child is permitted to
try to stop the parent before the fact as he does in a different case
involving monetary loss. He cites one authority who suggested that it
may be too obvious to mention that the child is not obligated to allow
the parent to hit him for no good reason.

Wicked parents

The Yam Shel Shlomo, suggests that perhaps it would be a meritorious act
( midas chasiddus ' i.e., beyond the letter of the law) not to protest
even before the fact, providing the parent truly (and erroneously)
believed that this was an appropriate educational intervention, for if
the parent simply acted in a fit of anger then he is a rosha [wicked
person]. In the Chidushei Rabbeinu Yaakov me'Lublin ve'Rabbeinu Heshel
me'Krakaw (in the Tur Hachodosh) it states that if the father is acting
like a rosha then the son is permitted to insult him [lehachlimo].
While the Rambam and the Mechaber rule that there is an obligation to
honor a wicked parent, the Ramo and the majority of poskim disagree.
The Oruch Hashulchan rules like the Ramo. A very prominent posaik told
me that the normative Halacha is like the Ramo.

The Yam Shel Shlomo then relates a dispute between the Rambam and
Ravad regarding the obligation to personally care for a parent who acts
inappropriately. He distinguishes between such behavior when it is due to
tiruf ha'daas (e.g., suffering from Alzheimer's disease) where according
to the Ravad there is such an obligation, and where the parent is acting
out of ro'ah lev (a wicked heart) where there is no such obligation.

While we do not hesitate to describe acting out teens as having a lev rah
( wicked heart), we resist thinking of abusive parents as acting out
of ro'ah lev. However, the Yam Shel Shlomo and others recognize this
possibility and make it clear that there is no obligation for a child
to honor such a parent. Where possible, it is best for the child to
move away. However when not possible, according to these poskim a child
is permitted to take steps to protect himself from abuse and can seek
recourse in a beis din after the fact. It is very unfortunate that some
teachers may (inadvertently) imply to children that the Torah obligates
children to passively tolerate chronic abuse by parents when this is
not the case.

I heard that someone wanted to prove that there is an obligation to honor
abusive parents from the fact that the commandment to honor parents
was given to the generation of the Exodus in spite of the fact that
their parents brought on them great pain and suffering. The parent's
sinned with the Golden Calf and with the spies and so the children had
to wander in the desert for 40 years. I, however, don't see how one can
compare parents who indirectly cause their children suffering to parents
who directly abuse their children.

The petur of choleh

Harav Dovid Cohen shlit"a has stated that if interacting with an abusive
parent makes a person emotionally ill then the child is exempt from
this obligation. Since one is not required to spend more than a fifth
of his assets for a mitzvas aseh then certainly one is not required to
make himself sick. Obligating abused children to honor their abusing
parents unconditionally will almost certainly exacerbate their emotional
distress and/or disability. When presenting a particular abusive parent
question to a Rov it is imperative to be completely open regarding the
extent of the abuse and the degree to which the abuse is causing the child
emotional distress and disability. Often children find it very difficult
to be fully open even with themselves in this regard and it then becomes
the clinician's duty to help the patient to formulate his/her question
fully and accurately.

Defending oneself

Many children feel that defending oneself from a false accusation is a
violation of kibbud av va'eim. This is not so. In the Sefer Ben Yechabed
Av (p. 91) he states that a child is permitted to respectfully state
that the accusation is false.

The obligation to admonish [hochocha]

Rabbi Litwack (p.34, and p. 47 in the name of the sefer Chadrei Daiah)
suggests that just like a child is obligated to admonish his parent if he
is violating a Torah commandment here too if the parent is speaking to the
child abusively ' clearly a violation of halacha ' the child is obligated
to rebuke the parent [as respectfully as possible under the circumstance].

Clinical consideration

I have elsewhere discussed at length the clinical challenges of treating
Orthodox adolescents with abusive parents. One area of conflict is the
kibbud av va'eim obligation. I explain why children are so resistant to
acknowledging the abusive nature of their parent's behavior (even when
it is blatant) and why it is important to help the child to overcome
this resistance. I also elaborate on why it is imperative that abused
youngsters be told clearly that what their parents are doing is abusive,
against the Torah and inexcusable. Likewise, they need to be told that
the parental abuse does mitigate their kibbud av va'eim obligations
(the degree and nature of mitigation needs to be determined by a
knowledgeable Rov).

The Maharik on the limits of the kibbud av va'eim obligation

The popular perception (often reinforced by self-serving parents) is
that the mitzvah of kibbud av va'eim is all-encompassing and without
limits or qualifications. It is important to realize that there are
clear parameters to this obligation. For example, the Maharik states
that a father does not have the authority to forbid his son to marry
the women he desires and the Ramo rules like the Maharik.

The Maharik gives three reasons for his ruling and I believe these reasons
are clearly applicable to a child contending with an abusive parent.

1) The halacha is that the parent has to bear the financial burden of
the son' s fulfillment of the mitzvah of kibbud av va'eim (e.g., the son
has to prepare and serve the food for his father but the father pays for
the food). If the child is not required to undergo a financial loss then
he certainly does not have to endure personal suffering by not marrying
the women of his choice.

2) We see in many places in the Talmud that the Rabbis are concerned that
a wife find favor in her husbands eyes so that they have a good marriage.
By trying to force his son to forgo his choice in a wife it is as if
the father is ordering his son to go against the Torah since he is
not likely to have a good relationship with a choice forced upon him.
[One can perhaps likewise argue that abused children frequently rebel
against their parent's religious beliefs, or develop serious emotional
disorders, neither of which is desired by our Rabbis].

3) The Maharik rules [and this is the normative halacha] that the
obligation to honor parents applies only when the parent asks for
something that benefits the parent directly. The obligation does not
require obeying commands that do not directly benefit the parents,
for example, whom the child marries.

Defending the strong at the expense of the weak

It is sad that, as a society, our religious sensitivities causes us to
be more concerned with the obligation of abused children to honor their
parents than with the serious violations of halacha being committed by
abusive parents! We are very comfortable saying to an abused boy, "Sure,
it's unfortunate that your father is abusive, but that's how he is and
he isn't going to change. You are obligated by the Torah to honor him so
just get over it." What's more, abused children are often told that they
are obligated to forgive their abusive parents even when their parents
never acknowledged the abuse and have certainly never apologized for it.
What's more, they are often compelled to apologize for getting angry
over the abuse.

In contrast, we seem to be too intimidated to say to the abusive father,
"It' s unfortunate that you are having difficulties with your boy, but
every time you speak to him abusively you are violating numerous Torah
commandments (e.g., V'ahavta l'rayacha komocha), and these violations
are especially egregious because the victim is a family member.

As Harav Dovid Cohen pointed out in his address to the Young Israel
Council of Rabbis, when a prominent person is arrested for molesting
children there is often more concern in the community for the fate of
the molester than for the wellbeing of the child victims.

The abused become abusers

A substantial body of research has shown that, while far from inevitable,
children who are emotionally abused tend to develop a variety of
emotional and behavioral problems including drug abuse, addictions and
"revictimization". They also are more likely to be emotionally abusive
of their own children later in life as compared to children who are
not abused.

Research by Briggs on sexually abused children found that those victims
who minimized the depravity and negative consequences of their abuser's
actions were substantially more likely to become abusers themselves in
adulthood. It is as if they say to themselves, "If what was done to me
wasn't such a terrible act, then it won't be so terrible if I do it to
someone else."

Children have a natural tendency to deny and/or minimize the harmful
nature of parental abuse. It would seem likely that compelling children to
honor their abusive parents would reinforce this tendency by indicating
that abusing children does not diminish a person's honor. This would
likely increase the likelihood of perpetuating this type of behavior.

When the community starts putting more pressure on parents not to be
abusive than on children to honor abusive parents, we may begin to make
a dent in the ever increasing tide of youngsters with serious emotional
and behavioral disorders. Addendum

Excerpts from a speech by Harav Dovid Cohen shlit"a. "Counseling the
contemporary Orthodox Jewish family." Young Israel Council of Rabbis
Annual Conference, February, 2000.

"It happened in our community [that] the person who was [sexually] abused
was made to suffer by the community. [They were not so concerned] about
the person that was being abused, [rather they were] worrying about the
abuser that he not Chas V'Shalom go to jail"...

To address some of the questions [presented by] Dr. Sorotzkin [regarding
the obligation of Kibbud Av Va'Eim when parents are abusive]'.. In
a case where children were abused by their parents. Now I maintain
there is a difference as far as the type of abuse concerned. Kibbud
Av Va'Eim comes with Nisyonos, as the Gemara in Kedushin tells us, Ad
Heychan Kibbud Av Va'Eim the Gemara tells us where the mother of the
Melech came and took off this chashuva beged and spat at him, so the
Tosfos brings that she was a meturefes, she was insane. So, of course,
that has a lot to say why the son, the Melech, did not really feel that
his mother was embarrassing him, maybe he felt a tinge of embarrassment,
but everyone understood because they saw she was a Meturefes. But, in a
situation where a child was [sexually] abused by a parent'. we know it
is worse than being a choleh [ill person]. A child who has to deal with
a parent, who sexually abused that child, it's almost to say that that
child will never become meshuchrar [freed], it's very difficult to get the
damage out, and if the person has to deal with the parent, there are very
few people that can possibly do so. So certainly when it comes to sexual
abuse, I feel that it is not worse that a Mitzvah where most Poskim will
tell you that a choleh is potur [exempt], we are talking about Mitzvas
Aseh now, just as there is a shiur of mitzvos ad chomesh [one is only
obligated to spend one fifth of his assets for a positive commandment]'.,
so the Poskim say when it is a question of being a choleh that it is
the same thing, that being a choleh is like ad chomesh, so that there
is really no chiyuv [to make one's self ill for the sake of Kibbud Av]'...

There is another snif to be matir [reason for leniency], because when a
parent is a Rosha [wicked person], in sexual abuse the parent has a Din
of a Rosha' . So in the case of a Rosha, even though there are two daos
[opinions] in the Shulchan Aruch, which is a little strange, because
rov Rishonim disagree with the Rambam, and they hold like the pashtus of
the Gemora, that there is no Chiyuv Kibud Av by Eino Oseh Maaseh Amcha
[i.e., a rosha]. The Rambam says there is a chiyuv. But there are many,
and the Bach is clear on this that the Rambam only meant this that it
is a D'Rabanon. So again we have an extra kula [leniency], we have a
machlokes Rishonim [most Rishonim rule that there is no obligation of
Kibbud Av by a wicked parent] , and we also have the kula that it is
only M'Darabonin, so we can be meikil, as far as that is concerned.

[Regarding the question if it is permissible for a child to speak
negatively about his or her parents in therapy]. In a situation of
speaking to a therapist concerning these things, I'm not speaking
[only] of sexual abuse necessarily, but all [issues] where the therapist
feels that by discussing these things they can turn the patient around,
[for example] where the patient could acquire affection from the parent,
even though the patient has various tainus [complaints] on the parent,
I believe the mekor [source to permit this] is the Gemora in Sanhedrin
(84b), where the Gemora speaks about a child taking a splinter from a
parent, where it can cause a chabura [wound] and the Gemora says a very
interesting heter [reason for leniency] - V'Ahavta L'Rayacha Komocha
[love your neighbor like yourself]. The way Rashi explains it to mean
[that one is only prohibited to do to others that that he would not
want done to himself ' this excludes being "wounded" in the process
of having a splinter removes]. This to my mind [is similar to when]
the Poskim speak about Lashon Harah L' Toeles [for a helpful purpose],
which is not limited to Loshan Harah. Any [transgression of] Bein Adam
L'Chaveiro [when it is] L'Toeles is Mutar'.. Indeed, the heter of a parent
to hit a child is because it is L'Toeles for the hadracha [guidance]
of the child. All [transgressions of] Bein Adom L'Chaveiro is Mutar
[permissible] when it's L'Toeles. That's why a parent [is only permitted]
to hit a child [if it's] L'Shem Shamayim. And from that Gemora you see,
and it's a Safek, that Kibbud Av Va'Em has a Din of Bein Adom L' Chaveiro.
So this of course, there are many other sevaros [reasons] to be Matir
[be permissive], but I feel it is certainly Mutar Be Che'hai Gavna.

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. 

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to: 
http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm 
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm 

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 .....

Harav Avigdor Nebenzahl quotes a Zohar that Rachel davka wanted to sit
on the trafim to show how insignificant they are to her. He compared
this to our being m'vatel the chametz - to actually burning it. (see
Sichos l'sefer Bereshis).

Elly Krimsky

From: Yzkd@aol.com
<<See Biurei HAGRA on O"C 5:1 he learns that it means to have Kavana>>

That's pashtus, but how does it fit into the Gemara's list of amanim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 8 Dec 2003 at 17:15, Arie Folger wrote:
> RCS wrote:
>> I have always thought that sitting for the chupa (as is done in the
>> old country) was more m'chubad than standing around (as is done
>> here). When Adina and I got married here, we had someone ask
>> everyone to sit down for the chupa (and have the pictures to prove
>> it). So I had a little surprise last night....

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

I was not aware of that (I have yet to make it to any of the weddings
to which I have been invited outside of Israel and North America).

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

-- 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. 

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

1) In light of penultimate sentence quoted above, the final sentence
becomes ambiguous: Does the word "Included" mean that al-hagefen
CERTAINLY covers other semi-solid or smei-soft foods or is there a SAFEk
as to the correctness of that? =20

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

Noach WItty

The Gemorah in Horiyos 13b which lists 10 things which are "kashim
lelimud" (lit. difficult for learning) Rashi explains that things make
it hard for a person to "hear". Presumably he means they make it hard
for one to properly focus on his studies.

Similarly Rabenu Yedayah bar Avraham Penini (a Rishon) in his commentary
to Agados on maseches Horiyos explains that all of the 10 things listed
are causes for difficulty in learning for one of two reasons - either
because they psychologically distract a person or because they physically
make it uncomfortable for a person to focus on his studies.

While he does explain a good number of the 10 listed he does not
spec. speak of the bread issue - he does however explain that drinking
water which passes through a cemetary is often contaminated/ foul smelling
and therefore are drinking such waters are physically distracting as
they make one sick etc. I imagine "those parts of the bread which are
not properly baked" might pose a similar problem.

As I am sure you noted the gemorah mentions poorly baked bread but not
the ends of breads - as to the source for THIS concern - the Minchas
Yitzchok (Minchas Yitzchok 9:8:7) - Dayan Weiss Zt"l was asked this very
question - essentially he says although he knows of no source for this
he too is particular about it - among other reasons because many who
preceeded him were meticulous about it - I do not think that everyone
would agree with such an approach though - It is also noteworthy that
he knew of no source and yet - pple seem to be comfortable detailing
particular parameters regarding this (undocumented concern).

warren

On 8 Dec 2003 at 14:40, Rebelkrim@aol.com wrote:
>> 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 .....

> Harav Avigdor Nebenzahl quotes a Zohar that Rachel davka wanted to sit
> on the trafim to show how insignificant they are to her. He compared
> this to our being m'vatel the chametz - to actually burning it. (see
> Sichos l'sefer Bereshis).

But that wouldn't have a shiur, would it. She could have sat on them for
a few minutes/hours and then buried them somewhere on the way. If Lavan
was racing after Yaakov (covered the distance of seven days in a day),
surely he would not have had a whole lot of time to leave the road to
look for them.

-- Carl

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

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

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

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

On 9 Dec 2003 at 9:11, Arie Folger wrote:
> R Ezriel Krumbein wrote:
>>> Another reason is that Rachel was afraid that the trafim would
>>> help Lavan track Yaakov and his family. I suppose that according
>>> to this reason there might have been some ability for Lavan to
>>> find the trafim if they were only buried the same way that the
>>> trafim would help him find Yaakov.

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

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

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

-- Carl

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

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 09:50:42PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> I understood REK to mean that the burial would be a sign of Yaakov's
:> passing by (a sign a tracker would look out for).

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

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

-mi

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

> Not seeing each other is a "preventive measure" - type minhag, with
> its roots apparently in the din of Tava l'hinase (must wait 7 nkiim
> after proposing the nissuin - "dam chimud"). 

I believe one must be mocheh on the macha'ah. R. Gil Student has
already pointed out the error of seeking to apply the rule of "kallah
b'lo b'rachah asurah l'va'alah k'niddah" to a couple before kiddushin,
when she is not a kallah nor he a ba'al.

Furthemore, even after eirusin, it is not clear that the harchakos of
niddah apply. The expression "asurah k'niddah," which is from Maseches
Kallah and does not appear in the g'mara, is also not mentioned by the
Rambam, Tur or Shulchan Aruch. There is an issur biah, and hence an
issur yichud, but no more is mentioned. Does anyone suggest that since
a man may not hand anything to his niddah wife, it should be prohibited
for the chasan to hand the k'subah to his kallah under the chuppah?

The parenthetic remark about k'subah is also not quite accurate.
We pasken, in accordance with the g'mara, that "asur l'hashhos ishto
afilu sha'ah achas b'li k'subah," but nowhere does it mention that she
is k'niddah, and that he may not touch her. Nor is it asur midina today,
as the RM"A writes in EH 66 -- since we do not allow gittin against the
wife's will, there is no chashash of kallah b'einav l'hotziah, and it's
only minhag, not din, that it's asur l'hashhos.

As for the not seeing each other, it is far from a universal minhag.
I don't believe S'faradim adhere to it. I don't recall seeing it observed
with any regularity for zivug sheini. There are many chassidishe customs
which have become "ikar hadin" in Yeshiva circles, even though they
were not practiced in Lita and are still not done in Israel, such as
writing t'naim at the wedding and wearing of a kittel by the choson.
I may be very mistaken, but this may be another example, although one
which those who adopted, did so earlier and more universally than the
t'naim and the kittel.

In any event, many g'dolim, in addition to those cited, advised chasanim
that they may take pictures prior to the chuppah, so that those who
rely on such a p'sak cannot be accused of disregard of either halachah
or minhag.

EMT

From: Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il>
> Not seeing each other is a "preventive measure" - type minhag, with
> its roots apparently in the din of Tava l'hinase (must wait 7 nkiim
> after proposing the nissuin - "dam chimud"). It could be that last
> minute disagreements and fights between the chasan and kallah are so
> commonplace before the wedding, that one side may emotionally "call off"
> the wedding, and then quickly reconcile, this effectively being a new
> "tviah" necessitating another seven nki'im....

Just to add some more information (someone already noted that this minhag
is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch) -- Sephardim do not have this minhag.

It is customary for the couple to come to the wedding together (after
taking pictures together earlier).

Shoshana L. Boublil

I wrote:
>That is why the pictures must be done BEFORE kiddushin,
>so that the woman is not yet a kallah.

Avraham wrote:
>Kol sheken it's assur!!! Unless there is a complete nissuin,
>7 brachos  and kesuva and the whole works...it's assur. Chazal
>were just extending the regular issur pnuya to an arusa.

There is no kol she-ken. The only issur in touching a penuyah tehorah
is of hirhurim. That, it can and has been argued, does not apply on
your wedding day.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]