Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 051

Monday, December 1 2003

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:50:01 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Musaf

In a message dated 11/26/03 4:39:03 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> <<Perhaps, Shabbos there is no Mitzvah of Aliya Lregel the Tfila is 
> Shetaleinu Vsimcha Lartzeinu...>>

> Most of what you wrote is what I was thinking, this I didn't understand.

Musaf of Shabbos we also pray for the Geula Yehi Ratzon... Shetaleinu
Vsimcha Lartzeinu... Vishom Naaseh.. just like in any other Mussaf,
but we don't even mention the Beis Hamikdash, the reason being that
there is no Mitzvah of Aliya Lregel and the main Mitzvah is Shvisa,
(OTOH R"C has no Shvisa ONLY Korbonos).

Not BTW. I looked up the Rokeach who says why we mention Mizbeiach on R"C
is because on R"C the Reshoim are turned over in the fire of Geihinom,
the Mizbeiach is Michapeir on the fire of Geihinom.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:26:53 -0500
From: "Pinchas M. Berlowitz" <p.berlowitz@worldnet.att.net>

Just wondering what's the source for "everyone has a bashert?" the gemora
in Sotah 2a says that Rav Yehuda quoted Rav that 40 days before the (male
- tosfos there) fetus is conceived a voice from heaven declares that the
daughter of ploni is designated for that fetus. but that doesn't mean
they definitely will marry. the gemora in Moed Koton 18b says that another
guy can pre-empt the designee by davening that HE should marry her.

Pinchas M. Berlowitz <p.berlowitz@att.net>

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:07:36 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: driving

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0400 <dr@insight.att.com> Wrote
> Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>> My point was that in the Possuk there is no distiction between himself
>> and someone else and both are included in the Lav of Vlo Sosim Domim
>> Bivesecha, so whatever would be included (as to the different opinions
>> mentioned in the text I faxed) would also be Tolui on others.

> But this seems not to apply since the Rambam/Mehabeir has deliberately
> made a transition from the issur of lo Sossim in 1-7 to the asseh of
> v'nishmartem in 8. He seems blatantly to imply that the lav doesn't
> apply in the general case of michshol.

Actually he uses the exact same Lav of Lo Sossim he only changes the
Assei which deals with Maakeh to a more general Possuk (OTOH there are
other opinion on this too as mentioned in the fax sent Lchatchila on
this issue).

> Next in 9-10 the Rambam/Mehabeir introduces a series of issurim
> d'rabbanan of dangerous activities. Again I seem to have been m'chavein:
> the asseh d'oraytha is hassaras michshol, and the issurim d'rabbanan
> are activities.

See below WRT Esrog.

> Now the questions: Is there a general issur d'rabbanan of doing
> dangerous actions, or are only those things specifcally listed assur?

> The SA (it's in Orah Hayyim, H. Birchas HaGomel) cites a machlokes
> Ashkenazim vs. Sfardim whether kol hadrachim b'chezkas sakkanah bazman
> hazeh, but even though RYZ knows of people who travel only l'dvar mitzvah
> (and I have a vague recollection of hearing the same from other sources)
> I found no halachic source for such bahavior (admittedly I made only a
> very casual search).

1) As the Tur explains the Machlokes is not whether "kol hadrachim
b'chezkas sakkanah bazman hazeh" rather if we limit Gomel to those that
one brings a Todah whereas for Drochim Tfilas Haderech was instituted.

2) I know this from Maaseh Rav there is brought in Seforim WRT to travling
on Sundays that some travel only Lidvar Mitzvah, this is also evidenced
from the Minhag also brought in Poskim to send Shliach Mitzvah Gelt in
order to make him a Shliach Mitzvah (that are not Nizuk).

> RYZ writes
>> in what is derech haolom and proffesions since there is no Issur on
>> eself then it is not included in Shmiras Haguf

> implying that derech haolam, even if it in inherently dangerous, is
> muttar. I'm fairly sure he's right, but I would be happier with an
> explicit source.

In the original fax from Sefer Shmiras Haguf v'haNefesh he brings from
the Shut Shem Aryei (author of Arugas Habosen) Y"D # 27, the Tzitz Eliezer
brings many more in Vol. 11 Simon 14 Ois 3 and in Vol. 15 Simon 37 Ois 2,
and he uses this as permission to enter voluntarily in to the army.

> Is there an issur of endangering others? The Mehabbeir excised from
> the Rambam he cited all the examples of endangering others. 427:10 can
> cut both ways, but l'aniyus daati, coupled with my previous sentence,
> it offers at least a little support that the Mehabbeir thought there
> isn't.

He relied on what he himself refers to Y"D 116:5 he brings the din of a
knife in an Esrog, see also the Klei Nossim who bring the obligation of
being Milaveh a guest or else he be considered a Shofeich Domim, see
also Shevet Halevi Vol. 6 Simon 112 WRT speeding that it is a Sofeik
Retzicha or Miabeid Atzmoi.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:06:18 EST
From: T613K@aol.com
Re: berachah for women

In Avodah V12 #50 dated 11/27/2003 Eli Turkel wrote:
> Having grown in a chassidic shul the women I knew all made berachot
> on a mitzvah she-hazman grama. Which chassidim (most?) don't?

Grew up in Gerrer home. Women didn't make bracha Leishev basukka,
and did not light menorah. Did make a bracha on lulav ve'esrog.

--Toby Katz

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:29:20 -0500
From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@erols.com>
berachah for women

For a comprehensive discussion on various shitos as to whether women *may*
or *must* make a bracha on mitzvos aseh sh'hazman grama that they perform,
see sefer Orach Yisroel (Rabbi Yisroel Taplin; Lakewood NJ) siman 26.

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:27:09 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Wives of Tannaim and Amoraim

The tally (in no order):

Rachel wife of Rabbi Akiva (virtually none of the men get this one!)
Beruria wife of Rabbi Meir (virtually everyone gets this one)

Yehudis wife of Rabbi Chiya  (Kiddushin 12b)
Chova wife of Rav Huna (Nazir 57b and B"K 80a)
Ima Shalom wife of Rabbi Eliezer and sister of Rabban Gamliel (B"M 59b)
Choma wife of Abaye (Kesubos 65a)

Other possibles include bas Rav Chisda, wife of Rava and Abaye, and
the daughter of Rav Yitzchak Nafcha, who was married to Rav Papi.
(IOW although we don't know her name, we do know more about her than
her being referred to as someone's wife. Those abound, and are not
counted here.)

Additions/comments welcome.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:27:18 EST
From: T613K@aol.com
Re: nursing and what fathers can do

In Avodah V12 #50 dated 11/27/2003 Chana Luntz writes:
> Surely this must have been discussed somewhere, either to say that what
> Rob and I were taught in our respective chatan and kala classes is a
> ridiculous chumra doing the rounds, or to say it is proper behaviour.

> Did nobody else learn this in their respective chatan/kala classes
> (is this just minhag a small section of Golders Green or what?)

I never had any kallah classes, my father taught me the halachos himself,
but the subject of nursing did not come up. When I did have babies to
nurse, it simply never entered my mind that there could be any problem
with nursing in the same room as my husband. And he never objected,
so I have always assumed, and continue to assume, that nursing a baby
in the presence of one's husband is mutar. My husband did not daven or
say shma with me in the room, nursing the baby; otherwise, no problem.

Sleeping in separate rooms is certainly not required; how many people
in past generations even HAD extra bedrooms they could sleep in if they
wanted to?

However, I have heard of a husband who told his wife that she could
nurse ONLY in their bedroom and nowhere else, even if she was alone in
the apartment.

This sort of thing, if widely practised, would tend to dampen mothers'
motivation to nurse their babies, and is a good example of a chumra that
is so likely to have unintended bad effects, it should be squelched.

 --Toby Katz

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:22:15 +0000
From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.net>
Re: nursing and what fathers can do

In message <3FC5CA10.2331.1809194C@localhost>, Carl and Adina Sherer 
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>On 26 Nov 2003 at 20:58, Chana Luntz wrote:
>>> I'll conclude with Rav Eider's Halachos of Niddah, page 249: <<< When she
>>> is nursing and part of her body [is or] becomes uncovered, he must be
>>> careful not to gaze.>>> (Brackets his.) Not "he must stay out of the
>>> room". Not even "he must keep his back to her". Merely "he must be
>>> careful not to gaze."

>> Interesting. This could be for one of two reasons. One he holds that the
>> rules are different between husband and wife regarding how you need to
>> act, despite the nature of the prohibition being the same (and despite
>> no such distinction seeming to be drawn in the poskim that I can see,
>> but I wait to be corrected), or alternatively he might hold, like ROY,
>> that m'ikar hadin we poskin like the Magid Mishna there is no problem for
>> him to look (except for extremely limited body parts not in discussion
>> here) and that the rules that he does not look is a recommended chumra,
>> in which case, putting a chumra on a chumra would be inappriopriate.

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

>I believe that's the difference between "lir'os" and "l'histakeil"
>and that the poskim generally say "l'histakel."

There is a distinction drawn in the poskim between l'histakeil and lir'os
 - but ROY in Taharat Habayit brings the Shevet Levi as forbidding ri'ah
b'alma in the covered parts of a wife in niddah, because between histaklus
and riah is but k'chut hasa'arah. And quotes the badei shulchan as holding
similarly. He (ROY) rejects this however on the basis of what he has
said above, namely that what the Maggid Mishna has said on the Rambam
and the other rishonim, who permit even histaklus of a wife in nidah,
so therefore even if it is proper to be machmir and not have histaklus
for the covered parts, riah b'alma is OK.

The logic of that seems to me to be correct, which is why I only brought
the two options above. Because the riah b'alma concept is utilised
frequently vis a vis the parts of stam women that are allowed to be
visible, but generally not regarded as permitted vis a vis the parts
of women that are supposed to always be covered (except in the onus
situations of having to pass by the washerwomen, or the nature of our

I just realised that the source quoted by ROY as banning riah b'alma in
a wife who is in niddah is the same source brought by this R' Furst in
the English book at shul. It thus seems to me that we have a machlokus
between the R' Eiders and the R' Fursts which may in fact stem back to
the basic machlokus rishonim.

Shabbat Shalom
Chana Luntz

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:12:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Re: Musaf

From: Y[it]z[cho]k[ Zirkin]d@aol.com
> In a message dated 11/26/03 2:07:56 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>> Why the focus in Musaf of Rosh Chodesh davka on the mizbe'ach (mizbe'ach
>> chodosh betzion tachin) rather than a more general desire for geulah?

> Perhaps, Shabbos there is no Mitzvah of Aliya Lregel the Tfila is
> Shetaleinu Vsimcha Lartzeinu... Yomim Tovim where there is Mitzva
> of Aliya Lregel we say Bnei Veis'cha... Rosh Chodesh with it's main
> Mitzva Soir Lchapeir (not Shvisa) which requires Bikar the Mizbeiach
> we ask accordingly (R"H and Y"K we follow other Y"T, Shabbos and R"C
> Shabbos wins).

Or, more fundamentally, on all other days when we say Musaf (SY"T),
there are other observances of the chag that concern us: Me'angeha
Le'olam Cavod Yinchalu, or on Y"T aliyah leregel and the re'iah business,
and simchat Y"T. On RH, there isn't any personal observance, just the
communal offerings lechapeir.

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:08:39 -0500
From: Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net>
Re: Tachanun or not

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> zsero@free-market.net writes:

>> This logic would obviously
>> not apply to Tachanun: we don't say tachanun on Erev R"Ch because of
>> the moon's waning, so when the moon stops waning there's no reason to
>> stop saying it.

> OTOH we don't say Tachnun at Mincha because Rosh Chodesh begins then, so 
> there is reason to consider from the Molad,

Eh? We don't say tachanun at mincha on Erev R"Ch for the same reason
(whatever it is) that we don't say it at mincha before any non-tachanun
day which begins at sunset (the exceptions are Erev-R"H, Erev-Y"K, and
Pesach Sheni, all of which begin by day, not at night; and according to
nigle-sources Lag Baomer, for the same reason). R"Ch isn't special in
this regard.

In any case, you have yet to find a source for supposing that R"Ch has
`already started' from the molad. I have shown that the M"A is not such
a source.

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:32:13 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Halachic definition of liquid

I just caught the tail-end of an scj conversation that as far as I could
tell couldn't resolve the original question.

What is the shiur for yoghurt on a ta'anis?

It is quite possible that someone needs to replenish digestive flora, and
therefore is supposed to eat yoghurt. How much can he eat?

How do you define solid vs liquid?

This raised a related question that came up in my home. (I won't tell
you the pesaq we got until after the discussion.) Colgate came out
with a "liquigel" toothpaste. Not as thick as a paste, but not quite a
liquid either. During normal use, it would stay atop the brush, like a
paste. However, if left alone it will, in under a minute, drop off the
side or sink between the bristles.

May you use it on Shabbos or not?


Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:59:55 -0500
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<They are a solid form of Listerine mouthwash. They're antiseptic. You
can only consume tiny amounts before your intestinal flora will
rebell. Those slips are way less than a kezayis, because most of use
couldn't handle a full one.>>

But a beracha rishona does not need a shiur, and
<<My question is why do we think they're ra'ui la'achilah? Is it an
achshevei issue, since they're flavored?>>

 From the previously recommended publication, Daf Hakashrus:


+ There are many popular mouthwashes which contain large amounts of
glycerin which are certainly not "botul" in the product. These mouthwashes
are swished around the mouth several times and then ejected. The company
makes no pretense that the glycerin which is used is Kosher. The first
Taz in Hilchos Taruvos in Siman jwwm [98 GD], as well as all Poskim,
prohibit ruxht [issur GD] to be swished around in one's mouth.

Nevertheless, people, who are usually very careful with matters
of Kashruth, are lenient here without Halachic basis to use these
uncertified mouthwashes.

+ Some users of non-certified mouthwashes maintain that they are
permitted because they are not considered a food. They are vkhftn kxpb
[nifsal me'achila GD].

When asked why they do not use a mouthwash which contains no glycerin
or flavours or one under a reliable Hechsher they respond because they
have a need to "feel more refreshed". This response clearly indicates
that the non-certified mouthwash is certainly considered a tasty food
product which is definitely not vkhftn kxpb [nifsal me'achila GD]

The fact that "everyone" uses non-certified mouthwashes is also not
a reason to consume a product with a high Tarfus probability. AD KAHN

The pesak is from Rav Yisrael Belsky; the issue is at

So, while one does not make a beracha on mouthwash, even (kosher)
flavored, that's because you don't swallow. The Listerine PocketPak is
different and, as I mentioned, I'm awaiting clarification from the OU
on the beracha status thereof.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:52 -0600
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org

> From domo@aishdas.org Fri Nov 28 09:00:46 2003
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:44:56 -- 0500
Subject: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos
Message-ID: <20031128.095955.2612.7.gershon.dubin@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 425
Lines: 11
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<Wouldn't RMF's shitah also apply to the workplace?
Or, to put it another way, don't most of us not hold like RMF on this?>>

To mix threads, RMF wrote that since it's unavoidable to sit next to or
bump into women on the subway, it's not assur. So most of us do in fact
hold like RMF on this issue, midin kal vachomer from traveling to and
from work.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:20:14 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 09:44:56AM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<Wouldn't RMF's shitah also apply to the workplace?
: Or, to put it another way, don't most of us not hold like RMF on this?>>

FWIW, I was thinking of a frum working environment when I asked that.

: To mix threads, RMF wrote that since it's unavoidable to sit next to or
: bump into women on the subway, it's not assur. So most of us do in fact
: hold like RMF on this issue, midin kal vachomer from traveling to and
: from work.

I don't see this as an answer, but rather as shifting the question onto
how to understand RMF.

R' Moshe holds that (1) a classroom, being a gathering, requires a
mechitzah; and yet (2) the subway does not. VIDC?


Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:12:46 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Re: Molad Marcheshvan

[From an Areivim discussion, about which clock is used when announcing the
time of the molad. -mi]

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< My understanding was that the time was
announced as per the eastern edge of the Jewish settlement at some
point in our history. Not Yerushalayim. I would have thought it was
Alexandria solar time, but RYEibshitz says it's Cairo solar time. See
Sorry, but I was not thrown off by the ambiguity of terms. I was actually
disagreeing. >>>

That cite says: <<< Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (Pleisi 189) questions this. If
a woman's cycle is related to the phases of the moon, determing her
Veses would require extremely involved calculations based on the Molad
of the exact location in which she lives, and it could not be based on
the standard Molad (which is based on the Molad as seen from Cairo). >>>

I am quite the novice at Yoreh Deah, but I tried looking it up anyway. My
4-volume YD has a Kreisi Upleisi in the first two volumes, but not in the
fourth. In the third volume, which is where Hilchos Nidah is located,
It doesn't have a Kreisi Upleisi, but it does have something called
Tiferes Yisrael, which (if I'm reading the title page correctly) was
either written by, or is an extract of, Rav Yonasan's Kreisi Upleisi. For
lack of anything else, I'm going to suppose that this might be the source
that the above DafYomi site was citing.

If I'm correct in that, the reference seems to have been to note 189:7,
which is located on pages 8a-8b there. That whole note is about how he
rejects the idea that the phases of the moon might somehow influence a
woman's biology, but he also mentions that even if it *would* have an
influence, it would be based on the moon's phases as it appears in the
woman's location, not the moon's phases as it appears elsewhere.

In particular, on 8a, four lines from the bottom in my edition, he says
"The whole calculation of establishing our months and molados is according
to Eretz Yisrael, because from there comes Torah and establishment of
the months."

I did not notice any mention of Cairo, but nor will I claim to have
done anything more than skim that siman, so maybe he wrote about Cairo
elsewhere. But with that quote I just brought, I'd doubt it.

Regarding Alexandria: Mah inyan Alexandria etzel Har Sinai? The molados
can be easily counted back to 8:00:00 AM on Friday of the Creation week.
That is, the moon was created a few days earlier, and moved into the
molad position (however that might be defined) at 8 AM that day. The
question we are asking is: 8 am *where*? When the moon reached the molad
that day, which points on earth had the sun located 1/3 of the way up
the morning sky?

Bavel? Yerushalayim? Cario or Alexandria? Beats me. My guess -- given the
Medrash about what happened to Adam Rishon at specific times on that day
-- is that 8 am in Gan Eden d'l'Mata ought to be in the running too. But
this particular note from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz seems to vote for some
point is Eretz Yisrael, at least in my edition.

Akiva Miller

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 >