Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 130

Sat, 09 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 2. Re: Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Can [sic] a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: soup (David Riceman)
• 6. FRUITFUL QUESTION (Richard Wolberg)
• 7. Re: FRUITFUL QUESTION (Micha Berger)
• 8. modern technology (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: FRUITFUL QUESTION (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: FRUITFUL QUESTION (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: soup (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: FRUITFUL QUESTION (Zev Sero)
• 13. Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Can You Throw Newspapers With Torah Content Into The Garbage? (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: soup (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 15. Shechitah: A Guide for [Personal] Evolution (Micha Berger)
• 16. modern technology (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Re: Separate tables (Chana Luntz)

RJRich wrote, "First I think one might want to try to identify the source of the "minhag"  to 
add one candle per child.  I suspect it's an example of what the gemara refers to as 
"nahagu" - that people just started doing it that way and it caught on."

       Today we are accustomed to thinking of childbirth as nothing too
       serious as far as the mother's physical condition is concerned. 
       Until the fairly recent past, however, it was treated much more
       seriously -- it's not so long ago that the normal post-partum
       hospital stay was two weeks.  It would not surprise me if failing to
       light candles the first Shabbos after giving birth was not a rarity,
       and the din mentions that missing a week calls for lighting an extra
       candle for life.  Is it too far a stretch to assume that those
       places which adopted the hanhaga of an extra candle per child did so
       k'de lo l'vayeish those who missed, by making it the practice of
       everyone?

EMT

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e15df14d3e8f26f251st02vuc

On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 04:29:54PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: It would not surprise me if failing to light candles the first Shabbos
: after giving birth was not a rarity, and the din mentions that missing
: a week calls for lighting an extra candle for life. Is it too far a
: stretch to assume that those places which adopted the hanhaga of an
: extra candle per child did so k'de lo l'vayeish those who missed, by
: making it the practice of everyone?

This raises an interesting issue bizman hazeh...

Now, that losing a child is a rarity, for those women who did, the weekly
reminder of a child lost can be painful. Far more so than when the loss
of a child was a sorrow shared among many.

Or, it could be a reassurance that a life was lived and didn't simply
vanish from the world like ch"v the child never was. It depends on the
woman and where her head is that week. But let's just look for a moment
at those for whom this is a source of pain most weeks...

If we did away with this hanhagah and every wife just lit two candles,
we spare those mothers the experience of starting Shabbos with heartbreak.

I heard RARakeffetR suggest this line of reasoning, and seeing my own
wife light that candle (or ask if one needs to when there is a "yahrzeit
candle" for the same child underneath the Shabbos licht), it resonates.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

>                                                         ... it's not
> so long ago that the normal post-partum hospital stay was two weeks.
> It would not surprise me if failing to light candles the first Shabbos
> after giving birth was not a rarity, and the din mentions that missing
> a week calls for lighting an extra candle for life. Is it too far a
> stretch to assume that those places which adopted the hanhaga of an
> extra candle per child did so k'de lo l'vayeish those who missed, by
> making it the practice of everyone?

> EMT

That is the most common reason I've heard given, but not with a reference
to an early source. I also wonder whether an ones would be subject to the
additional candle rule, but in any event, I still think it would likely
qualify as nahagu as above (i.e. there was no original rabbinic edict)

KT
Joel Rich

RTK:

<<There is no issue of hataras nedarim nor do we have matrilineal 
minhagim -- not patrilineal minhagim either, for that matter, in the 
case of a married woman.>>

Isn't this a circular argument? Something becomes an implicit neder if 
you intend to do it forever; it's not a neder if you intend to change it 
when you marry (YD 214:1).

OTOH it certainly is possible for a woman who has made nedarim to marry, 
and the nedarim don't disappear by the act of marriage (EH 39:1-2).

David Riceman

RAM:

<< MB 177:1 -- "Daisa - Even though it is thick, and one does not eat it 
together with the bread (aino m'lafes bahem hapas), and it is eaten on 
its own, nevertheless, since it comes for satiety, it *is* the main part 
of the meal, and it is tafel to the bread. And the same halacha applies 
to all types of tavshilin which are usual to come during a bread-meal." 
On the one hand, it is true that the MB does not mention soup by using 
the word "marak". But in my experience, "tavshilin" refers specifically 
to wet foods which are cooked in a pot. This might be a stew more 
frequently than a soup, but I don't see why the halacha would be any 
different.>>

Sorry to be writing so much about this subject, but I elided this by 
writing "meal/bread" in a previous post.  Porridge is also the subject 
of a machlokes rishonim, see, for example, Drisha 177:1 for a sampling 
of opinions.

HaMotzi has two dinim: it exempts any food which accompanies bread (with 
certain exceptions) and it establishes a meal ("kovea seudah").  It's 
not the only way to establish a meal (Shabbos, for example, is kovea 
seudah), but eating bread is, ipso facto (with some exceptions, as I 
mentioned above), kvia.

Porridge, the poskim tell us, is not a food which normally accompanies 
bread.  It is, however, a food which constitutes a meal.  Porridge 
constitutes a meal, and bread constitutes a meal.  When both are eaten 
together we have not two meals, but one, and hence we need only one brachah.

Soup (especially clear soup) does not generally constitute a meal, so I 
don't see that this halacha is relevant to it.

David Riceman

All of the m'forshim agree that we don't know for sure what fruit was from the Eitz hadaas and that 
it was NOT an apple. Perhaps a fig because of the fig leaves. Somewhere it was asked why we dip an 
apple in honey on R"H. Why not a pear or peach or mango, etc. According to the Midrash the apple
symbolizes Gan Eden which has the scent of an apple orchard. In Kabbalah it is called "the holy apple
orchard." In fact when Yitzchok commented regarding Yaakov (Bereshis 27:27), "Behold, the fragrance 
of my son is like the fragrance of a field, which God has blessed", Rashi explains that this refers to the 
scent of an apple orchard; the scent of Gan Eden. Furthermore, when Shlomo Hamelech depicts the 
love God harbors for His nation, he writes (Shir Hashirim 8:5): "Beneath the apple tree I aroused your 
love." Eating an apple, therefore, on R"H is an attempt to remind God of our age old love.

Now my question is why should it not have been an "apple"? With all of the above commentaries, it would
seem quite logical that the fruit could very well have been an apple.

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:03:18AM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Now my question is why should it not have been an "apple"? With all
: of the above commentaries, it would
: seem quite logical that the fruit could very well have been an apple.

1- According to Tosafos (Shabbos 88a "piryo"), the comparison between
Yisrael and and "ketapuach be'atzei haya'ar" is to an "esrog" tree. R'
Chama brR' Chanina says the comparison is because the tapuach's leaves
grow /after/ the fruit. And R' Tam notes that this isn't true of apples,
but is true of esrogim.

R' Tam includes in his analysis "reiach apekha ketapuchim" (Shir
haShirim 6).

I am guessing this is related to the botanical observation made in
Sukkah says, "'peri eitz hadar' -- ha-dar be'ilano mishanah leshanah",
the esrog grows on the tree from one year to the next. A 2nd year esrog,
ready to pick, predates the leaves around it.

As for the smell of the holy "tapuach" orchard... It would be easier to
explain as applying to an esrog orchard. Because esrogim, "ta'am eitzo
upiryo shaveh" the tree and the fruit taste alike. Therefore, brushing
up against the trees would leave you with a pleasant esrog smell. (Which
I can attest to from experience.)

And so "reiach beni kereiach hasadeh", understood midrashically, refers
to the fact that like an esrog orchard, one who learns Torah and wanders
through the chaqal tapuchin qadishin is left with the fragrant smell of
the "esrogim" of his Torah. True Torah study affects not only intellect,
but character.

So it's quite likely that this too is an esrog. Which is one of the
opinions in the gemara.

2- I do not think we assume that Adam's gan eden is the same "place"
as the one in / that is olam haba. Adam's gan eden is hard to describe
as an orchard of any one particular kind of fruit.

3- The identification of the eitz hadaas with an apple is via the french
pomme, which means both apple and also could be generic fruit. Something
Modern Hebrew borrowed to tapuach when they named "tapuach adamah" and
"tapuz" (condensed from "tapuach zahav"). In King James English, the
same was true of "apple". The English bible simply used a word that in
those days meant "fruit", not the Malus domestica in particular.

The XIans have a similar confusion due to the shift in meaning of the
word "kill". In those days "kill" meant what we now call murder, and
"slay" was the more generic term. "Thou shalt not kill" was originally an
accurate translation of "lo sirtzach", referring only to unlawful killing.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

I was listening yesterday to a radio program and the guest listed
numerous practical problems from modern technology.
In many modern refrigerators the motor and other parts are controlled
by a computer. Thus, they turn on the motor after the door as been
opened a few times. Thus, listening to whether the motor is on or off
is irrelevant. If one opens the door the x-th time it automatically
turns on the motor. Similarly fans on turned on by various actions
that one doesnt always realize.  Thus, in some cases opening a door
can turn off the fan to slow down cold air from exiting. The door
opening is detected in more automatic ways than the old switch which
could be covered (also to prevent the light from going on)

He claimed that in newer plumbing systems the pump giving enough
pressure can go on automatically every time a faucet is opening in an
apartment building. He knew of only one new apartment building in Bnei
Brak that had altered the system for shabbat.

Of course there are the older problems, mainly in hotels, that lights
and even toilets can be activated by motion sensors. Over the coming
years more hotels will install such automatic devices to lower their
electric bills. This can extend to the water supply in many cities.

He mentioned that in some cases one can rely bideved on psik reisha
de-lo niche leh but that in many cases like the faucet one wants the
resulting high water pressure and similarly in many other cases.

-- 
Eli Turkel

The 4 possibilities that I know of (grape, wheat, fig, etrog) are either 
part of the tikkun (wheat, fig, etrog) or the "first sin" is re-enacted via 
that fruit (grape). Apple, even with your commentary, seems to be value 
neutral.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Wolberg" <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
>
> Now my question is why should it not have been an "apple"? With all of the 
> above commentaries, it would
> seem quite logical that the fruit could very well have been an apple.
> _______________________________________________ 

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:19:25PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> The 4 possibilities that I know of (grape, wheat, fig, etrog) are either  
> part of the tikkun (wheat, fig, etrog) or the "first sin" is re-enacted 
> via that fruit (grape)....

Berakhos 40a:
    R' Meir: the vine (brings misery to the world)
    R' Yehudah: wheat (a child doesn't have titles for his parents until
        he is old enough to eat grain)
    R' Nechemiah: fig (because that way they had the leaves for clothing)

Bereishis Rabba 15:6 (also in Yalqut Shim'oni Bereishis 21)
    esrog, ("taam eitzo upiryo shaveh" fulfills the "original plan"
    of "eitz peri" rather than "eitz oseh peri")

(I find it odd that the chazal don't list them in one place.)

All in all, three different criteria for identification:

R' Meir and R' Yehudah looked for edibles that impact the psyche.

R' Nechmeia invokes the notion of the refu'ah (clothing) preceding the
makah (the cheit)

And the medrash goes metaphysical.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:19:49PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> Sorry to be writing so much about this subject, but I elided this by  
> writing "meal/bread" in a previous post.  Porridge is also the subject  
> of a machlokes rishonim...

Tangent: In the world of the Ashk rishonim, porridge was the staple of
the local population's diet, moreso than bread. There are theories about
the rarity of mills that produced flour fine enough for dough (this was
the "Dark Ages" in that part of the world), dental limitations, etc...

But I think this has much to do with the birth of the minhag of qitniyos.

Which is why I am so interested about whether we would count pits (like
qinoa) as daisa.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

On 8/07/2011 12:03 AM, Richard Wolberg wrote:
> All of the m'forshim agree that we don't know for sure what fruit was
> from the Eitz hadaas and that it was NOT an apple.

Not true. AFAIK not a single meforesh rejects the possibility that it
was an apple, or even considers that possibility in the first place,
because that idea had not yet been invented in their time. It's peculiar
to the English-speaking world, and arises from the fact that "apple" used
to be a generic term for all fruit except berries (this usage persisted
as late as the 17th century). Since none of the meforshim lived in post-
17th century English-speaking countries, they would have been completely
unaware that one day some people would think the fruit was an apple,
and thus they were in no position to either endorse or reject it.
*Could* it have been an apple? I suppose. I see no particular reason
to rule it out, except that we have various traditions for what it was,
and lich'ora *one* of those traditions should be correct.


On 8/07/2011 7:18 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The XIans have a similar confusion due to the shift in meaning of the
> word "kill". In those days "kill" meant what we now call murder, and
> "slay" was the more generic term. "Thou shalt not kill" was originally an
> accurate translation of "lo sirtzach", referring only to unlawful killing.

More accurately: extrajudicial killing, whether lawful or not.
"Veratzach goel hadam et harotzeach".

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=474

Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Can You Throw Newspapers With Torah Content 
Into The Garbage?

Rav Moshe Shternbuch points out (1:553) that the Rambam (Yesodei 
HaTorah 6:8) distinguishes between Kisvei Kodesh meaning klafim of 
tanach that must be buried and seforim that do not fall into the 
category of Kisvei Kodesh which do need to be buried but it is 
forbidden to destroy them or burn them. If you destroy them you get 
Malkus D'Rabanan (Mardus).

To be Melamed Z'chus on people who throw newspapers with Torah 
content in the garbage he makes two points. Firstly, printed 
materials technically have no kedusha and secondly, since these 
newspapers are made to be thrown out they never become kadosh.

Although Rav Shternbuch himself buries any papers with any kind of 
torah content, he paskens that one should wrap it in a bag or another 
paper before throwing out. That would be okay considering the fact 
that it is printed and meant to be erased. Furthermore it is best not 
to place it in the garbage can with the rest of the garbage but 
rather in separate bin. He ends by saying that V'Hamachmir Tovoi Alav Bracha.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110708/5f25f19c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Riceman wrote:

> Porridge, the poskim tell us, is not a food which normally
> accompanies bread.  It is, however, a food which constitutes a
> meal.  Porridge constitutes a meal, and bread constitutes a meal.
> When both are eaten together we have not two meals, but one, and
> hence we need only one brachah.
>
> Soup (especially clear soup) does not generally constitute a meal,
> so I don't see that this halacha is relevant to it.

I'll be very honest and tell you that I really don't understand the concept
of what foods do and don't accompany bread. I honestly believe that it is a
concept not relevant to the style of eating that I was brought up with. So
I hope you won't mind if I ask you this:

If soup is not a meal-food, and it's not a drink for washing down the
solids, then what sort of food *is* it? Would you consider it to be a snack
food, like apples and cookies? Is it a whole new category?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e1720dda017a7ddb0st05vuc

From R' Mordecai Toczyner's blog (The Rebbetzin's Husband), at
<http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2011/07/shechitah-guide-for-evolution.html
>.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Shechitah: A Guide for Evolution

We realized very late this week that we were missing an article for our
weekly Toronto Torah, so I was enlisted to draft a quick piece. I'm
posting it here because I know I have some Daf-learning readers who
may enjoy the Chullin-related material, and because a disruption of my
schedule like that requires that I save time somewhere - like by doubling
it as a blog post:

One might be forgiven for thinking of shechitah (kosher slaughter) as a
dry topic, mind-numbing in its emphasis on minutiae. Indeed, the sage Rav
(Bereishit Rabbah 44:1) argued that the point is obedience, and there
is no inherent value in those fine points. Rav said, "Why would G-d care
whether one performed shechitah from the front or back of the neck? The
mitzvot were only given in order to refine [G-d's] creations."

Others would disagree, though. Many chachamim, and particularly the
mystics, have contended that the design of each element of a mitzvah
involves deep arcana and is of cosmic importance. And beyond that, our
masters and mentors, particularly among the chassidim, have attached
ethical and moral lessons to the most dry legal codicils.

In a striking example, Rav Yaakov Yechezkel Greenwald, author of
"VaYaged Yaakov" and Pupa Rebbe until his passing in 1941, taught
lessons in personal evolution based upon the five central potential
disqualifications in an act of shechitah:

Shehiyah (pausing)
Shechitah is disqualified if the shocheit pauses during the act. So, too,
we who would improve ourselves must act with alacrity, not pausing and
not allowing ourselves to be distracted. It is not for naught that we are
encouraged, "Those who are energetic rush to perform mitzvot first." Or
as Pirkei Avot warns, one should never stall and say he will study when he
finds free time, for with such an attitude he will never have free time.

Derasah (pressing)
A shocheit must slice an animal's trachea and esophagus in a
back-and-forth cutting motion; if he becomes impatient and presses down
into the neck, the shechitah is disqualified. In the same vein, we must
be on guard against impatience with our own growth. We are expected to
learn patiently, taking time and making certain that we truly understand
the Torah we study. Further, we are expected to work on our character
and our intellect simultaneously; one who sacrifices his personal growth
in pursuit of rapid intellectual growth is guilty of derasah, pressing
and trampling upon important components of self-development.

Chaladah (tunneling)
The shechitah knife must be visible to the shocheit as he cuts; tunneling
into the neck so that the knife is hidden from view disqualifies the
shechitah. Similarly, we must make sure not to hide our self-improvement
from the public. Legitimate concern for modesty, or for embarrassment,
might grow and cause us to go underground with our growth, but our
commitment to HaShem and to Torah must include pride in our beliefs. As
the Tur wrote (Orach Chaim 1), "One must be bold like a leopard, and not
reticent before those who would mock him." If all who are committed to
Torah will plead modesty, the result will be a world devoid of visible
Torah.

Hagramah (veering)
Shechitah must be performed within a specific vertical space along an
animal's neck, and veering out of that space invalidates the shechitah.
The same applies to our development - a Jew must recognize that certain
sites are better suited for growth than others. Rabbi Akiva warned
his son (Pesachim 112a) not to set up his studies in the town square,
lest passersby distract him from his learning. Pirkei Avot instructs us,
"Go into exile, to place of Torah study." For a practical example: Our
homes are comfortable, certainly, but they are as filled with distractions
as the town square; better to go to a beit midrash or shul to study.

Ikkur (uprooting)
There is some debate regarding the proper definition of ikkur; students
of Daf Yomi will recall Rashi Chullin 9a and Rosh Chullin 1:13 as
essential sources. Rav Greenwald chooses to explain ikkur as shechitah
with a flawed knife, such that the trachea or esophagus is pulled
rather than sliced. Comparing the act of shechitah with our actions of
self-improvement, Rav Greenwald adjured us to aspire to flawlessness in
our actions, since each defect will affect our results.

Rav Greenwald saw in shechitah and its laws a metaphor for the work we do
in evolving our best selves, slaughtering our old identities and replacing
them with a new and improved version of ourselves. Pairing energetic
alacrity with patient care, being unabashedly public in our commitment,
selecting our venues for growth wisely, and demanding a commitment to
excellence at all times, we will perpetually create ourselves anew,
each day better than the last.

> I was listening yesterday to a radio program and the guest listed
> numerous practical problems from modern technology.

Tzomet deals with such issues but I havent seen anything from them
Probably is that this field requires knowledge of halacha and also the
latest technology

The report I heard on radio was supposed to be an article in today's
yated neeman.
The guy said it took some 8 months (not full days) of work for the article

Anyone on this list get the shabbat Yated Neeman (in Hebrew) for more
details?

-- 
Eli Turkel

RZS writes [on Areivim, in a discussion about gender segregated seating
at home meals -micha]:
> There are several mentions of sending the kos shel bracha to the women.
> And the incident where the men forgot to do so, and either Martha or
> Yalta, I forget which, broke an expensive item to show her displeasure
> at the slight.

It was Yalta, but why do you assume that she was not in the same room
as them? With Sarah Imanu we were told she was in the tent. And we are
also told that the reason she was able to hear was that the entrance
of the tent was behind the malach. But with Yalta, (the story is on
Brachos 51b), the most reasonable explanation is that she was there.
Ulla gave the cos shel bracha to her husband. Her husband said, you
should send it to Yalta (I don't think the fact that it uses the term
send is significant you can send if somebody is in the same room as you)
as seems to have been the custom. Ulla said, a woman is only blessed via
her husband [ie therefore I should give it to you, and then if you want
you can give it on to her]. Yalta heard all this and got up and stormed
up to the wine cellar and broke four hundred barrels of wine. If she was
in another room, she is not likely to have overheard the interchange
(unless listening at the door like Sarah Imanu, which there was no
suggestion she was), so I think it far more likely that she was there.

>> In contrast, we have the whole discussion about women being part of
>> the kat for korban pesach, where unrelated families joined together, and
>> it would seem from that mishna and gemora there that the women ate with
>>the men.

> 1. I don't think it was common for unrelated families to join together
> in a chavura; this was only done if a family was small.   And remember
> that a lamb is quite small, so even at a bare kezayit each it doesn't
> feed that many.

Well Rav Moshe (Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 1 siman 41) quotes from
Eicha Raba that according to Rav Chiya there could be 40 or 50, and
according to Bar Kaparah there could be 100 per pesach.

> 2. From the fact that a kallah is given permission to turn her face and
> eat from the korban Pesach, I assume at the rest of the meal it isn't
> an issue because she's not eating in front of the men anyway and therefore
> doesn't feel the need to turn away.  She's only embarrassed when the
> korban Pesach comes out and she's suddenly forced to eat in front of
> her new male relatives, whom she doesn't yet know well.

Well since we posken like Rabbi Yehuda (on Pesachim 84b) that says you
cannot eat in two places, she has to eat the rest of her meal there as well,
so it is not just the korban pesach, but the whole meal.  

Actually though, it is not my analysis that the discussion surrounding the
korban pesach makes it clear that men and women may eat together, but Rav
Moshe's in the teshuva I quoted above.  He goes on to argue that the fact
that the Mishna prohibits women and slaves from making a chabura together on
Pesachim 9a because of tiflus, means that men and women yisraelim are
permitted.  And why would Rav Ukva bar Chaninah say that we are not
permitted to form a group of women alone [ie Rav Ukva assumes that we cannot
have a group of women alone, and while Rava disputes this, the very hava
mina of Rav Ukva would not make sense if in fact the halacha was that women
were supposed to and normally did eat alone].  And Rav Moshe then goes on to
use the fact that she is turning her face away from men she didn't know very
well as proof that there was no mechitza, and that therefore the men were
able to see her and that as a new kala she was likely to be embarrassed.

>> And (moving to the time of the early achronim) even the whole
>> discussion about sheva brochos and those who say one should not recite
she
>> hasimcha bimono is based on a Bach who was commenting on the fact that
on the
>> second day, the minhag in Crakow was not to say shehasimcha bimono,
>> and explains the reason for this being that on the second day they
>> tend to seat men and women in one room, which they didn't do on the
first
>> day by the wedding.

> Actually that's not based on the Bach but on the Sefer Haminhagim.  The
> Bach merely quotes it.

The Bach in his commentary on the Tur quotes the Sefer HaMinhagim. The Sefer
HaMinhagim actually quotes the Sefer Chassidim (and the Bach correctly
sources this in his teshuva on the subject (Chadashot siman 55)).  However
given the rather ambiguous position of the Sefer Chassidim in the halachic
tradition, I think it is fair to say that it got into the mainstream via the
Bach.

The Sefer HaChassidim actually says that it is a problem if men and
women see each other (presumably they would therefore need to either make
Kiddush themselves or hear it from behind a non see through mechitza).
It is also really not very clear that the Bach himself should be
understood the way he has generally been understood, because if you look
at the longer teshuva I quoted above, he goes on to say that while on
the second night they only have relatives and they sit together men and
women and hence one should not say hasimcha bimono but on leil Shabbat and
Shabbat shachrit, where in Krakow the minhag is only to have "bacharim
u'betulot" [it is OK, since] "v'ain behem hirhurei averah"(!?!) and the
problem is "davka ksheseduan nashim beulat baal b'leil bet". So the
problem seems to be, at least according to the Bach, as understanding the
minhag of seeing married women. [It does seem very odd is this because
this is held before the regular time of onah, and hence we might assume
husbands and wives would be flirting??]

>> Which, while it assumes separate seating for a wedding, assumes the
>> opposite for a more intimate gathering like sheva brochos on the
>> second day.

> Yes, it documents that that was the custom in Cracow, for whatever
> reason; perhaps because it was a smaller group, and could therefore easily fit
> in one room so there was no need for two.  But the fact that shehasimcha
> bim'ono wasn't said in such a setting shows that it was not regarded as
> quite proper, even though everyone did it anyway.

Yes, it was because on leil bet there was a smaller group, and people
were able to eat in the "beit choref". Well was it that it was indeed
not proper, or was it an explanation of the minhag, ie that people were
following a view (ie the Sefer Chassidim) that led to the minhag. Also,
there has long been a distinction between public and private, and while
Rav Moshe may see a wedding and hence sheva brochos as having the status
of private, it is not an unreasonable position to hold otherwise given
the requirement for a minyan etc. But that does not mean that meals
that are not required to be public have the same din.

But regardless of the philosophical position, the Bach appears to regard
it as understood that absent a wedding or a very large feast, men and
women were sitting together. He doesn't suggest this is a break from
the past or unusual behaviour. So I am trying to find where you have any
evidence of your statement that men and women sitting separately for a
meal (not a wedding, which might as I have mentioned be regarded as a
public event, but a regular shabbas meal) has always been the Jewish way.
Whereas I cannot see any evidence of this before the advent of the
Chassidic movement (nor is it clear to me when this happened there,
although I guess it was always the man who went off to visit the rebbe,
and the woman stayed home for shabbas and yom tov, so there was an
enforced separation, that perhaps grew, ie it became normal for men
and women not to have shabbas and yom tov together and the idea that
separating husband and wife in this manner was not so terrible).

> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Shavuah Tov
Chana



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


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 130
***************************************

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..."