Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 081

Wednesday, December 27 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:14:39 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Hechsher on bubble bath


R. Ari Zivotofsky generously posted [on Areivim] an article of his about using
kosher soap because of sicha kishesiah.  Unfortunately, it has been lost in my
computer archives due to the recent deluge of Areivims.

However, that shitah clearly only applies to body soap.  I'm not sure if taking
a bath is considered sicha.  I find it hard to believe that washing dishes with
soap is considered sicha.  Certainly not if using gloves or a dishwasher.

Also, I'm wondering if there is a difference between soap today and in the
1600s/1700s.  Today, soap is essentially inedible i.e. pagum.  How can it be
that something that it is mutar to eat is assur to use for sicha?  If sicha is
kishesiah and shesiah is mutar, shouldn't sicha be mutar as well?  PERHAPS, in
the old days soap was just a slab of lard which could easily be used for cooking
as well.  Does anyone have any information about the history of the
manufacturing of soap?

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:28:43 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Connection Between Daf Yomi and Chanuka


At 12:02 PM 12/26/00 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>Just to prove that there is (almost) always a connection between Daf Yomi
>and the season....

See Or Gedalyahu Vol. 1 p. 34a, another connection between Sotah 5a and
Chanukah. to complete the picture, learn through Pachad Yitzchok Ma'amar 7,
who does not quote the Gemoro, but is an obvious link.

Those who attended my shiur this morning, heard these sources already.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:05:59 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Car Mezuzah


A slowly-becoming-frum co-worker told me that a friend of hers recently came
back from Eretz Yisrael and gave her a car mezuzah as a gift.  She knows that
you don't need to put mezuzahs on cars but wanted to know if she could put this
on her car.

I took a look at it and it is a beautiful case covering a photocopy of a partial
passuk in Hebrew and English.  My thought was that since she is clear that this
is not a mezuzah (and she is clear on that), this should be no worse than a
kemia which at one time was very popular.

Any thoughts?

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 10:20:12 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP


David Glasner wrote:
> I'm not following. If you are using the Rambam's classifactory system, which
> you seem to be doing, halakhot l'Moshe mi-Sinai refer specifically to those
> laws for which there is no Scriptural source at all.

Yes, that is correct regarding the technical term "halachah leMoshe miSinai".
However, the idea of a halachah that was taught to Moshe at Sinai is much more
inclusive.  It includes many of the halachos that were later justified by a
derashah.

> The Rambam postulates in some places the existence of certain mi-pi ha-Shemua
> laws that could be proved using the hermeneutic rules, but for which there is
> a Sinaitic tradition controlling the intepretation.

This is what I would call a new halachah.  The Sinaitic rules of hermeneutics
were used to derive new laws that have a status of de'oraisa.

> He cites such examples as the interpretation of pri eitz hadar and ayin tahat
> ayin.

I believe that this is a different concept.  These are Sinaitic traditions that
determine the interpretation of biblical verses.  The tradition defines the
interpretation and no one defies this tradition.

> In the hakdamah, the Dor Revi'i takes issue with the Rambam on ayin tahat
> ayin. He proves conclusively (though you may differ of course) that on the
> Rambam's own criterion of a mi-pi ha-sh'mua interpretation, ayin tahat ayin
> does not qualify because there clearly were Talmudic disputes concerning the
> interpretation of ayin tahat ayin which the Rambam maintains never happened in
> the case of a mi-pi ha-Shemua law.

I believe, not on my own merit but based on others more worthy to disagree, that
the Dor Revi'i is incorrect.  Even as non-traditional a scholar as R. David
Weiss Halivni (in his Mesoros uMekoros) claims that there is no dispute
regarding ayin tachas ayin.

> On all this see siman 192 in Havot Yair who provides example after example of
> arguments, which according to the Rambam never took place, concerning halakhot
> l'Moshe mi-Sinai and mi-pi ha-Shemua interpretations.

The Chavos Yair himself offers many different possible explanation but nevers
puts them together systematically and is therefore dissatisfied with them.  The
Maharatz Chajes in his Toras Nevi'im does a masterful job in defending the
Rambam.

> It is not clear to me whether the Dor Revi'i meant to deny that there
> were any mi-pi ha-Shemua interpretations or, if there were, whether a
> Sanhedrin would be allowed to change such an interpretation. He clearly
> believed that there was no basis for saying that ayin tahat ayin was a mi-pi
> ha-Shemua interpretation rather than a member of your next category.

Ah.  This was the answer to my question.  You are saying that it is possible
that according to the DR there are two levels of Torah Shebe'al Peh.  One level
that was transmitted and is inviolable and another that is subject to change by
Sanhedrins.  This makes me less uncomfortable with his position.
 
I wrote:
 
> The Rambam in hilchos mamrim 2:1 is referring to halachos that are DERIVED
> through hermeneutics. A later beis din can change that. The first type
> of halachah, such as the 39 melachos of Shabbos, is unchangeable.
 
David Glasner wrote:

> Oh really, then how do you explain the existence of perek clal gadol in
> masekhet Shabbat?  There were obviously extensive disputes concerning the
> definition of the avot m'lakhot and the conditions for incurring liability for
> violating them.  According to you such disagreements should never have
> existed.

The Chavos Yair, 192 (Ramat Gan:1997) p. 559 suggests that there was a tradition
about all of the details of the halachos but many of the details were forgotten
while the general rules were not.  In your example, that there were 49 melachos
and what they were was not forgotten.  However, the details of many of the
melachos were forgotten and were derived through hermeneutics.  See also the
Maharatz Chajes in Kol Sifrei (Jerusalem:1958) pp. 115-116.
 
> I don't want to be overly critical, but your citation of the verse v'zavakhta
> mi-tzonkha u-mi-b'karkha ka'asher tzivitikha provides much less support for
> your position than you think. The halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai that you are
> referring to is to the specific requirement that shehitah sever two simanim in
> cattle and one in foul.

See above about general halachos and details.

> But all this is itself a matter of extensive dispute in Hulin. According to
> the way Rashi and all other m'forshim understand the verse, i.e., according to
> the opinion of R. Yishmael who held that b'sar ta'avah was prohibited in the
> desert, the interpretation of ka'asher tsivitikha is not a reference to a
> halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai but a reference to the commandment of sh'hitat
> kodshim, because the whole point in D'varim is to permit the consumption of
> hulin after shehitah is performed as it had been performed on kodshim.

Everyone agrees that there was a halachah leMoshe miSinai regarding how to
slaughter (either for in the desert or for when they would reach the land of
Israel).  The only question is whether that halachah can be based on the verse
in Devarim.

> Thus, the verse that you cite for the undoubted existence of an extensive oral
> interpretation of the written law transmitted to Moshe with the written law
> actually shows how precarious the basis in our own sources is for the
> existence of such an extensive oral interpretation.

Yes, you are correct.  You could also have pointed to Ibn Ezra on Devarim 12:32.
 
Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:29:32 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Toras Imecha


On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:42:16AM -0500, S Klagsbrun wrote to Areivim:
:      [A friend] mentioned that although he liked the people in P[.] and
: in the shul in which the family davened he was dismayed by the lack of
: mesorah here. It seemed to him that everyone was putting on their tallaisim
: right out of the MB, and not out of memory.

Not "tallaisim", "tallisos" or "talliyos"!

Yes, the irony of giving a textualist correction to something canonized
in Yiddish is intentional. And yet...

There is one major disadvantage to such mimeticism. (Speaking as
someone who acknowledges that his own neti'os are too far to the other
extreme.) Unexamined memory is by definition mitzvos anashim milumadam.

Take talleisim vs tallisos, since I raised that example. I'm sure, without
even knowing what it is, that one could find significant Torah in the
fact that this cheftzah shel mitzvah is named bilashon nekeivah. Perhaps
there is a whole world of meaning and kavanah hiding behind this little
grammatical quibble.

: There are times I wish there were a real chassidesheh rebbeh in town. The
: minhagi followed wouldn't be mine but at least they wouldn't be paskining
: from an Artscroll highest-common-denominator guidebook.

You see this I think is the problem, albeit Artscroll isn't one of the bigger
sources of such guidebooks. Halachah isn't being determined in the normal
textual manner either. It's not finding a shitah in the mitzvah and following
through with it. At least, not often enough. It's leaving everything a
shitah-less safeik and being chosheid for dei'os that adas Yisrael has
closed the book on generations ago.

: (I still can't figure out why I do atifah the way I do.

I, OTOH, know why I do atifah the way I do. Because the Rambam says that
if done right, you end up wrapped like a Yishma'eli. So when I do atifah
I feel connected not to my elter zeide's atifah (which is unkown to me),
to R' Akiva's atifah, and Moshe Rabbeinu's -- people who actually dressed
in a manner that evolved into Arab attire. If only for that one moment
on one morning a month I'm not in too much of a hurry to think anything.

Such opportunities, as rare as they are to me, are almost altogether closed
to the mimeticist. Your plan would require I find an emotional hook for
the minhag that I have, rather than choose minhagim that fit what I can
relate to. With such a relationship to minhag and p'sak, there never would
have been Chassidus, Mussar, or a Yeshiva movement (nor TIDE), as each
movement required adopting hanhagos to match the hashkafah.

Knowing Simcha, I assume he would take this as a ra'ayah, not a kushya.
However, if mimetic Ashkenazi Judaism was doing so well, why did they
need to invent these movements to begin with?

-mi

--
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:23:08 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Toras Imecha


MSB:
> I, OTOH, know why I do atifah the way I do. Because the Rambam says that
> if done right, you end up wrapped like a Yishma'eli.

This Rambam points to a model using Yishmaeilim.

Given Hirsch's shita of criticism of the Rambam for using external
modes to understand halacha/hashkafa, how would Hirsch deal with using
this paradigm? IOW why not refer to something internal rather than
using Arabs as the model?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:42:34 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Toras Imecha


On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:23:08PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> I, OTOH, know why I do atifah the way I do. Because the Rambam says that
:> if done right, you end up wrapped like a Yishma'eli.

: This Rambam points to a model using Yishmaeilim.

No, the Rambam doesn't use Arabic thought to model his halachah, he uses
Arabic custom as a picture. It's not like he's saying "do atifah like a
Yishma'eli because Yishma'elim are right on this". He is saying "atifah,
when done right, happens to look Yishma'eli".

Limashal, what if someone said that a proper chalitzah shoe should
resemble a native American moccoson. (I'm NOT saying that this is
true.) Does this mean he's using native American thought to frame or
develop his idea? Or, that he found something that is more readily
available than a chalitzah shoe for people to use as a picture.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:49:14 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Toras Imecha


Micha Berger
> No, the Rambam doesn't use Arabic thought to model his halachah, he uses
> Arabic custom as a picture. It's not like he's saying "do atifah like a
> Yishma'eli because Yishma'elim are right on this". He is saying "atifah,
> when done right, happens to look Yishma'eli".

Q: Is painting the cloud as in Kitor hakivshan wrt to mahapeichas Sdom
as looking like a nuclear muhshroom cloud qualitatively different?
If so how?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:32:01 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Toras Imecha


On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:49:14PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> No, the Rambam doesn't use Arabic thought to model his halachah, he uses
:> Arabic custom as a picture. It's not like he's saying "do atifah like a
:> Yishma'eli because Yishma'elim are right on this". He is saying "atifah,
:> when done right, happens to look Yishma'eli".

: Q: Is painting the cloud as in Kitor hakivshan wrt to mahapeichas Sdom
: as looking like a nuclear muhshroom cloud qualitatively different?

It too is not a model. However, they differ in a more basic respect. One
is an illustration of an idea. The other, as you originally presented it,
was asserting a new concept: that the neis was actually a nuclear explosure.
Not that it looks like one. (Even the latter isn't necessarily in evidence
from the pasuk.)

What you are saying with S'dom is closer to asserting (which no one does)
that one does atifah that way because there is a purpose in looking Arabic.
Not that one happens to look Arabic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:28:09 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP


Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> This is what I would call a new halachah.  The Sinaitic rules of hermeneutics
> were used to derive new laws that have a status of de'oraisa.

What do you mean by *Sinaitic*  in "sinaitic rules of hermeneutics" 
Are they HLMM? 
If so how do we deal with the disputes re: Ribuy miut ribuy vs. klal
prat uchlal?
Or were the "meta-rule" to derive the hermeneutic rules Sinaitic and
they were applied differently to produce differing sets of rules?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:19:27 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
RE: menorah lighting


From: "Leon Manel" <leonmanel@hotmail.com>
> Whats the halachic basis to make a Brochoh at the public menorahs Chabad 
> puts up. Maybe RY'Z can comment

How is the public menorah lighting any different than the menorahs that are
lit in shuls?  The person lighting the menorah makes a bracha in shul, even
though he will be lighting again at home.  As for the propriety of the
bracha in shul:

In Halichos Shlomo (IIRC, p. 352), RSZA explains that, when we light our
menorahs, we are not doing so because of the neis that the oil lasted for
eight days, but rather as a form of hallel for the miraculous victory over
the yavanim.  This approach solves several questions:

	1) how come women aren't chayiv to say hallel on Chanuka (as they
are at the seder), because of "af hain hayu b'oso haneis?
	2) why do we light the menorah on the night of the 25th; l'choirah,
we found the oil sometime on the day of the 25th (after winning the battle
[chanu...chof hei...], and the menorah was first lit on the night of the
26th.  Therefore, the first candle should be lit on the night of the 26th?
	3) we never find that chazal were mesaken a yom tov or a new mitzva
"merely" because a miracle occured that enabled us to keep a specific
mitzva.  (In other words [i.e., mine], what's the big deal about us finding
the shemen and it lasting for eight days?  The menorah wasn't being lit
during the battle anyway; would it have been so terrible if it waited for
another eight days?
	4) why do we say a bracha when we light the menorah in shul; this
lighting is only a minhag, and we usually don't say a bracha on a minhag?

But, once we say that the menorah (together with saying "Haneiros
Hallalu...") is a form of hallel, all of these questions are answered:

1)  Women are chayiv in hallel...but they are yotzei with the menorah. (I
believe that RSZA explains why they don't actually say hallel like men do.)
2)  The menorah is really for the miraculous victory which happened on the
25th, so we light on the 25th
3)  The mitzva of neiros chanuka is really for the victory, not so much
because of the fact that we were able to find enough oil for eight days.
4)  hallel on Rosh Chodesh is a minhag, and we do say a bracha on RC.  So
too when we light the menorah in shul (and, IMO, when Chabad lights a huge
menorah at a public display) a bracha is made.

RSZA has several proofs to this chidush of his (one of them is from the
language of "Haneiros Hallalu...k'dei l'hodos ool'hallel...").  Ayin sham.  

KT
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:48:09 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: menorah lighting


On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:19:27AM -0500, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: How is the public menorah lighting any different than the menorahs that are
: lit in shuls?

There is a machlokes rishonim as to why we light menorah in shul. The
Ritva says (1) that it's betzibur, and therefore the usual pirsumei nisa
applies. But other possibilities exist, that wouldn't apply to a public
menorah lighting:

2- It could be parallel to kiddush on Friday night, where we make for those
   who live in the shul or otherwise can't do it when they get home.
3- A zeicher limikdash belongs in a mikdash me'at.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:44:49 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
RE: menorah lighting


On 26 Dec 2000, at 11:19, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> In Halichos Shlomo (IIRC, p. 352)...
> 1)  Women are chayiv in hallel...but they are yotzei with the menorah. (I
> believe that RSZA explains why they don't actually say hallel like men do.)

Lichora this would  be an argument for RYBS's shita that women should also 
bentch licht individually.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:36:19 -0500
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
zemer lechanuka


I actually came across this zemer inadvertently (if there is such a thing...
well, I was inadvertent).  I had been following some of the discussion on
the zemer and was astonished to hear some of the things attributed to  Ibn
Ezra.  It is a secret to no one on this list that he was a Rishon of the
first order with all the weight that such a title carries.  It is candidly
ridiculous that someone has to vouch for the Ibn Ezra and, upon reflection,
somewhat disturbing that no one saw fit to be melamed zchus on the
allegations of encouraging binge drinking on Chanukah.  Baruch Hashem, I
read the words myself and these ideas were mistakenly attributed to Rabbeinu
Avraham .  There is no doubt that, as with nearly all the words of any
Rishon that we do not understand, the cause is our own ignorance, not the
"wierdness" of the Rishon.  (That said, there is poem about Shabbos
attributed to Ibn Ezra that is much more troubling.)

Onwards.  First, contrary to another poster's contention, the zemer is not
only NOT criticized by Rav Ya'akov Emden but is printed in his siddur witht
he following introductory words: "Zemer na-eh le-shabbbos chanukah vechathum
AVRAHAM hu ibn Ezra.")

The words, transliterated, are followed by my translation.  I have not
annotated the sources because Inthink it more important that the correct
notions of the zemer be publicized.  In any event most of this audience
knows the references.  May this be a zechus for a refuah shlaima for
Betzalel Eliezer ben Esther Chaita be-toch she-ar cholei Yisrael.

Eechlu mashmanim--eat fatty foods
Ve-soles revucha--and fried flour
Torim u-venai yonim--turtle doves and young pigeons
Shabbos chanukah.

CHORUS:

Hai, hai, bais kur--I believe "Hai" is an exclamamtion, noit he usual
Aramaic.  "Bais kur" is repeated in the next line of the chorus and
therefore stated here to provide rhyme, or to stress how great is the need
to ensure that neros Chanukah are available...
Timkor--sell
Tachkor--sharecrop, as in "khakirus"
Tiskor--NOT "tishkor" as was erroneously suggested--lease (out) a . . . .
Bais Kur--a sizeable portion of land
Le-tzorech Chanukah--for the needs of Chanukah
In other words, this chorus is a rythmic way of expressing the notion found
in the gemara that one must do what one must in order to make sure that one
has the materials necessary to light nerot Chanukah, even if it means
selling or renting real estate in order to have the monies necesary to fund
the purchase of oil, wicks, candles, etc.

Barburim avusim--stuffed (?) swans
Be-shpudim tzeluyim--are raosted on spits
Ve-chaleel la-ishim--and totally burnt
Echad meen ha-minuyim--one of those counted... this is obviously borrowed from
korban pesach... I suggest that perhaps this is a reference to the halacha
that the left over oil from neros chanukah must be burned up following
Chanukah... however, I have no certainty as to the intent here.

CHORUS

Rack va-tov --the soft, i.e. children, and good, i.e. elders...
Yechdaloon--will cease
Mi-nisuch haMayim--from pouring water, learning Torah which the gemara
states in several places is compared to water, in order that . . .
Bevais HaYayin nalin--let us reside in, meaning visit, the house of wine...
see Ibn Ezra on Shir hShiriim 2:4 where he interprets Bais HaYayin as "Bais
HaShem."  At first, I thought this meant we go to shul.  I think another or
perhaps more primary meaning may be that this reference to the Bais
haMikdash refers to hatavas hanairos which took place . . .
Be-chol yom pa'amayim--twice daily.

An alternate pshat may be that "rach vatov" refers to food, as it does in
the beginning of Parshas Vayaira.  In which case Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra
is telling us poetically that we may not eat until that ceremony that we do
now, which was done in the Bais haMikdosh twice daily, takes place.

CHORUS

Mikolos mayim rabbim--from the sounds of great waters (Tehillim 93?), i.e.
from the sounds of Torah, see Yeshayahu 54/55 (?)("hoy kol tzamei lechu
lamayim")
Tetzilena oznaichem--may your ears ring, (This is an echo of a phrase found
early on in Shmuel 1.)

The above two phrases taken together exhort the reader to listen to Torah as
it is being taught. The verse continues in parallel, with this notion of
constant listening reflected in constant speech:

Vechol mishras dam anvim--and all blood-colored liquid, i.e. grape
juuice/wine, squeezed from grapes, another reference to Torah, (see
Yeshayahu above for the allusion and midrash/aggadata thereon... the phrase
conflates a pasuk in Parshas Naso "mishras anavim" and a pasuk in Ha-azinu:
ve-dam anavim tishteh -- this could very well be to make the two haves of
this stanza each carry 14 syllables)
Lo yamushu mi-pichem--should not move away from your mouth, i.e. Torah
should always be the subject of your conversations.

If my explanation is correct, the last stanza actually directs the reader
that once one has stopped learning in order to light neros Chanukah, one
should return immediately to learning.  It's a poetic counterpoint. (I'm
sure there are terms of art for this but it's not my field.)

CHORUS

Be-ezras HaShem, we have an interpretation of Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra's
zemer that does not advocate inebriation, but rather oneg shabbos, being
punctilious in the mitzva of neros chanukah and otherwise spending one's
time listening to Torah and actively learning Torah, a notion that is
entirely consistent with Chanukah as a celebration of the victory of those
who learn haShem's Torah and dwell in his House over the enemies of Torah.

May we speedily see miracles in our day.

Yehi ratzon she-zchus Rabbeinu ya'amod lanu le-yeshu-os u-refuos lanu
u'lechol Yisrael.

Noach Witty
Passaic, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:03:39 -0500
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky - FAM" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Subject:
Re: Hechsher on bubble bath


On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> R. Ari Zivotofsky generously posted [on Areivim] an article of his about using
> kosher soap because of sicha kishesiah....
> However, that shitah clearly only applies to body soap. I'm not sure if taking
> a bath is considered sicha. I find it hard to believe that washing dishes with
> soap is considered sicha....
> Also, I'm wondering if there is a difference between soap today and in the
> 1600s/1700s.  Today, soap is essentially inedible i.e. pagum....

I agree that dishwashing detergent would not be included in the discussion
of sicha k'shtia.
I was only offering the suggestion that since hand soap (and maybe hand
lotions?) are, aybe bubble bath was as well.

I am not sure that today's soap is not fit to eat.
witness all the teachers in mide-america that still iterally wash kids
mouths out with it.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 02:38:45 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@bezeqint.net>
Subject:
Re: Covering hair


>> Where is the Maharatz Chayes that permits uncovered hair, where most act
>> that way?

> Shu"t Maharatz Chajes (in Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chajes vol. 2). IIRC the
> teshuvah is in the 60s.

If I have misread this tshuva #53 or missed something in the original
posting I apologize for my criticism. On the other hand if  the Maharatz
Chajes views are being strongly misrepresented - it does a great disservice
to publicize a "chidush" which goes against established practice without
first reading the original source.

I don't understand how this tshuva #53 can be understood to mean that he
permitted women to go without any headcovering - "permits uncovered hair" if
most act that way? My brief perusal of his discussion indicates that he is
not permitting the head to be uncovered but only braids or hair sticking out
of a head covering. He says, "Even though the source he is relying on -
i.e., Rav Moshe Alashkar -goes to an extreme to be lenient for women in Arab
countries for braided hair that hangs down he was only lenient because that
is the custom in those countries." Even this the Maharatz Chayes permits
only if there is no way to get the women to cover their hair completely. In
fact it seems that the original posting is as accurate as claiming that the
Mishna Berura did not require women to dress modestly because he says that
the requirement to cover-up the area between the knee and the ankle is
dependent upon local custom. However if the  intent of the poster was in
fact to indicate that the Maharetz Chajes tolerated braids to hang out of a
headcovering (when it couldn't be stopped)  but not an uncovered head - it
would be appreciated if this critical factor was stated clearly next time so
that I can more readily understand the posting. If I misread the tshuva
(definitely possible after 2 a.m.), I'd appreciate being told precisely what
it says.

Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:09:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael J Broyde <mbroyde@emory.edu>
Subject:
full uncovering of hair as a das moshe or das yehudis


A poster wrote, in response to my post, that:
> SA was badly misquoted.  Bais Shmuel was explaining and not changing
> the nusach at all.  SA does NOT rule that uncovered hair is only das
> yehudis. Rather hair covered with a mitpachas and not also a r'did is
> asur because of das yehudis.  See Tur that a r'did is a shawl over the
> head and shoulders like is worn today in Iran.

The claim that the Shulchan aruch was "badly misquotes" is absolutely
incorrect, when I claimed in my initial post that:

	In Even Haezer 115 the shulchan aruch seems to classify full
	uncovering of hair as a dat yehudit and not a dat moshe (unlike
	the Rambam, who calls it a dat moshe.). Beit Shmuel notes that
	this SA is incorect, and full uncovering is a dat moshe, and not a
	dat yehudit.

I will go through the sources quite closely, albeit in English, as this
goes to heart of an issue. I encourage everyone to grab a Rambam and
Shulchan Aruch, and read along in Hebrew!  

Rambam states in Ishut 24:11-12
     (11)	These are the things that if a woman violates one of them,
she has violated the dat moshe: Goes out with her hair uncovered or
she takes oaths and does not keep them, or she sleeps with her
husband and she is a nida or she does not separate challah, or she
feeds her husband prohibited foods, never mind weasels or bugs or not
kosher food, but even food that did not have ma'aser taken form
it......
	(12) What is dat yehudis: the custom of modesty found among Jewish
women, and these are the things which if she does violates dat
yehudis: goes out in the marketplace of semi-public area which her
hair uncovered, and lacking a kerchief like all other women, even
though her hair is covered with a cloth....

Thus, Rambam clearly distinguishes between dat moshe, which is full
uncovering and das yehudis which is partial uncovering.

Tur writes (Even Haezer 115)
     These are the cases where a woman leaves her marriage without a
ketubah.  One who violates das moshe or yehudis.  What is das moshe? 
She feeds him things that did not have ma'aser taken from them or any
prohibited food like blood or [prohibited] fat and he ate on her
instruction and the truth was made known to him latter....
     What is dat yehudis: She goes out with her head uncovered, even
if it is not completely uncovered, but she is wearing a kalata
(=small hat) since she is not covered with a scarf, she looses her
ketubah....

Shulchan Aruch 115:1 has similar such language:
    (1) These are the cases where a woman leaves her marriage without a
ketubah.  One who violates das moshe or yehudis.  What is das moshe? 
She feeds him things that did not have ma'aser taken from them or any
prohibited food or sleeps with him while she is a nida and the truth
was made known to him latter....
     (4) What is dat yehudis: It is the custom of modesty found among
Jewish women.  These are the things that if she does one of them, she
violates das yehudis: She goes out in the market place or a
semi-public place or a courtyard where many people travel with her
head uncovered, and she has a large hat [ridid] even though her head
is covered with a scarf.

Bais Shmeul 115:9 comments on the words with "her head uncovered"
that "The rule is that in a reshut harabim full uncovering is a dat
moshe and if her head is partially covered with a hat or something
else it is a das yehudis."

The following is clear from the text of the Shulchan Aruch and
Rambam.  Rambam explicitly calls full uncovering a das moshe, and
partial uncovering a das yehudis.  The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch
reject that, and they take the formulation of the Rambam found in
Ishut 24:11-12 which calls full uncovering das moshe and partial
uncovering das yehudis and change it to reflect the fact that uncovering
of hair is not, whether full or partial, in the view of the Shulchan Aruch
of Tur  ever a das moshe, but is always a das yehudis. Beis
Shmuel disagrees and accepts the classification of the Rambam as
correct.  Why did the Tur and Shulchan Aruch classify even full
uncovering as a das yehudis is a fascinating
question, that I have no doubt many of you will proffer answers to
(as I do in the long Hebrew paper that I sent those who requested
it), but it presents a very very very strong limud zichut for married
women not to cover their hair generally in a society where such
uncovering is not immodest.  Maybe that -- being a simple shulchan
aruch jew -- was what motivated the conduct of those vast communities
where many married women did not uncover.

Michael Broyde

Can I ask for help from the list?  Does anyone know how to make an adobe
acrobate file from a hebrew text?  Email me if you do.


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >