Volume 32 Number 48
Produced: Sat Jun 10 22:58:00 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Basic Kashrut Information request
[Ron Tester]
Kosher L'Mehadrin
[Perets Mett]
Mechirat Hametz
[Meir Shinnar]
Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures (6)
[Gerry Sutofsky, Gershon Dubin, Boruch Merzel, Deborah Wenger,
Rick Turkel, Oren Popper]
Sale of liquor over Pesach (2)
[Boruch Merzel, Richard Fiedler]
Selling Chomets (2)
[Percy Mett, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Tester <rtester@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:20:20 -0700
Subject: Basic Kashrut Information request
How can I find a List or booklet listing and or describing all Kosher
meats, fish, poultry etc? For any help I am truly thankful!
<rtester@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:20:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Kosher L'Mehadrin
Eli Turkel writes
>I made a wedding several years ago in yerushalayim and paid extra for
>mehadrin food for some relatives. When they came they went into the
>kitchen and found out that the regular pots were used for the mehadrin
>food. They promply left the wedding on the spot.
That is just so sad.
If they do not want to eat a particular hechsher, that is a decision
that they make based on the standard of kashrus which they are used to.
But to leave the wedding...
Why not stay and participate without eating?
Wishing everyone a gutn yom tov
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <Chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:35:11 EDT
Subject: Mechirat Hametz
I learned from one noted rav about 30 years ago (but don't have sources)
that mechirat hametz originated in the Middle Ages, to address the
specific issue of beer breweries on Pesach. This would suggest that the
initial heter specifically addressed selling at least liquid hametz
gamur (complete, unquestionable hametz), although the issues of hefsed
merube (great financial loss) do not necessarily apply to most of us.
Does anyone have any sources confirming this origin?
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gerry Sutofsky <Edgm1@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:38:17 EDT
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
When my oldest daughter got married, she and her chatan asked his Rav as
to whether or not they were allowed to take pictures prior to the
chuppah. They were told that they most certainly can as it will not
cause the many guests who were there undo hardship. The guests and the
chatan and Kallah were most appreciative as they were able to fully
enjoy their wedding. Let's not look for chumras where there is no
necessity to have one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:15:03 -0400
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
I would like to add the following to my previous post on undue delay of
the wedding due to picture taking after the Chupa:
Rav Moshe Feinstein held that one may not leave before sheva brochos.
If one knows that he absolutely must leave before 7B, he may wash with
the intent of not being "part" of the meal and thereby not be obligated
to say birchas hamazon with a minyan and 7B.
The long drawn out weddings that have become the norm cause many
if not most people who are aware of this psak to use it routinely,
although it was meant for the occasional unusual situation. Those who
are not aware of it end up saying birchas hamazon without a minyan and
without sheva brochos, which is wrong.
The other alternative to Rav Moshe's suggestion is not to wash
altogether, which I have heard suggested by a prominent Rov, which is
also less than desirable in terms of participation in a seudas mitzvah.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Boruch Merzel <BoJoM@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:08:48 EDT
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
The idea of a bride & groom not seeing one another before the wedding
is, based on superstition and, as far as I'm concerned, not a Jewish
minhag. The custom was wide-spread among anglo saxons and other
medieval peoples, who had arranged weddings without the bride and groom
ever seeing one another. Many a wedding ws called off when the 2
intendeds got a look at one another, before the nuptials. And so it
became "bad luck" for a bride and groom to see one another before the
wedding.
Many non-Jews, to this day, are very superstitious about this and take
great care for bride and groom not to see one another for a week before
the wedding, and still more are very careful to keep bride & groom apart
on the wedding day. It is not at all surprising that this superstiton
of "bad luck" spread to the Jewish community.
In my younger days, everyone, and I do mean everyone, had pictures taken
before the Chuppah. Nor, was it considered unusual for the bride to be
present at the "aufruf". I urged my grandson, who was recently married,
not to give into this "Chuk Akum" --Gentile custom--- but, to have all
pictures taken before the Chupa and spare his guests the testing of
their patience. Even after consulting the powers that be at his
Yeshiva, who agreed with me, the young couple were evidently concerned
about what their contemporaries might think and followed current
practice.
I have just about given up fighting against the "narishkeit" that passes
today for "frumkeit". Greater men than I have tried and failed.
Perhaps, I should shut my eyes and ears, buy myself a Borocino (?) and
join the "Chumrah-of-the-Month-Club
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Deborah Wenger <dwenger@...>
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
For what it's worth, when some relatives of mine were planning a wedding
not long ago, they looked into the possibility of taking "mixed"
pictures before the chuppah. They were told by their LOR that if they
wanted to observe the minhag (and everyone agreed that it was just a
minhag) of not seeing each other before the badeken, they could have a
simple badeken before the picture-taking began, and then have another
one (which, obviously, would just be for show, but the guests would not
necessarily have to know this) before the chuppah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
My daughter was married fifteen months ago in Yerushalayim and
didn't see her chatan for a week before the wedding. (It's not my
personal minhag, but it's their life to live.) They had a very simple
solution to the photography problem:
(1) the photographer took the requisite pictures of the kalla
with female relatives and the chatan with male relatives on different
sides of the mechitza before guests were expected to arrive;
(2) the kalla sat in the usual throne-like chair in a direct
line of sight with the door to the hall, and the photographer took
whatever pictures he could of people greeting her when they arrived. He
also wandered over from time to time to where the chatan was greeting
his family and friends, which was off on the other side of the mechitza;
(3) some pictures of the chatan and kalla together were taken on
their way to the yichud room;
and here's the kunst that no one has yet mentioned:
(4) after sheva` berakkhot and the departure of the non-family
guests, all of the obligatory mixed-gender pictures, i.e., those of the
happy couple with each other alone and with various nuclear-family
groups (parents/siblings, aunt/uncle/cousins and the like) were taken.
I didn't give it much thought at the time, but this is the
perfect solution to the problem - no one is inconvenienced by having to
wait, thereby reducing the number of people who leave before sheva`
berakhot.
May the greatest of our problems revolve around semachot.
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...> ) | | \ ) |/ \ ein |navi| be|iro\__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano | rani, u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oren Popper <opopper@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:25:48 -0400
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures
The entire discussion about the wedding pictures, inconveniences,
etc. reminds me of a quote from the Lubavitcher Rebbe (I believe it was
in reference to the costs, etc. associated with modern day weddings):
"Adam Harishon got married without any pictures being
taken". Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me, so it
might not be accurate, but the gist of it is.
It is about time that the Jewish community refocuses itself on what is
REALLY important when it comes to weddings.
BTW, at my wedding (which was in Eretz Yisroel) family pictures were
taken AFTER bentching, when everybody was tired and couldn't wait to get
home.
Oren Popper
Brooklyn, NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Boruch Merzel <BoJoM@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:56:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Sale of liquor over Pesach
<< [I would strongly suspect that this friend does not sell any actual
chumetz. It is our custom to get rid of all actual chametz except for
wiskey. From what I remember, this was quite common among the crowd I
grew up in, as the non-liquer chametz would not likely fall under hefsed
merubah (major loss). Things that are not actually chametz, just not
Kosher for Pesach is what was usually sold. Mod.]>>
R. Moshe Feinstein, when told of the new concept, among cetain "frum"
elements, of not selling "chometz gamur" responded in Yiddish: "Oib
menfarkoift nit chometz gamur, vos farkoifmen ya?" trans: if one
doesn't sellactual Chometz then what does one sell The implication was
obvious that the process made no sense what so ever.
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <dfiedler@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 08:31:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Sale of liquor over Pesach
on 6/6/00 5:09 AM, Avi Feldblum at <mljewish@...> wrote:
> However, if my friend chooses to sell his bread, I will not tell him
> he is doing anything wrong. He simply has a different custom than I
> do.
What ever happened to the principle Sofick D'Orisa L'Homrsh? Especially
when I really fail to buy into the argument that this is really just to
big of a financial loss.
[I guess I do not understanding the question. I know of no Sofick here
at all and have no issue with going to this person's house after Pesach
and eating in their house. Just because I may choose not to avail myself
of selling certain items over Pesach, I am not challanging the validity
of the Halachik procedure. If you are challanging the validity of the
procedure, you then may have some serious consideration to make. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:37:06 +0100
Subject: Selling Chomets
>I don't know if it is "100% chametz", for that matter I'm not sure if
>pasta and cold cereal is "100% chametz", I suspect not. I'll get rid of
>cold cereal, usually give away the pasta, but sell the Bushmill and
>related wiskeys. As the whether by this custom only "sham chametz" is
>sold, my understanding is that one of the issues that drove the original
>halachic arrangement were food shops, and they will still be selling
>"100% chametz".
1 ) I do not have a reference to the original tshuvos handy, but the
'sale' of chomets was motivated by the large numbers of Jews who, a few
hundred years ago, distilled alcohol and depended on it for their
livelihood. because of the time factor involved in maturing the alcohol
it caused severe financial distress to have start from scratch after
Pesach. Whisky and other alcohol distilled from grain is 'zeyas chomets'
= vapours of chomets. As such it is not held by all authorities that it
is chomets d'orayso. For this reason various rabonim introduced the
heter of mechiras chomets with the buyback clause. Of course selling the
chomets outright before Pesach causes no problem.
One of the reasons many people dislike using mechiras chomets is that
the goods are not physically removed from the premises of the 'former'
Jewish owner.
2) I am interested in the suggestion that pasta is not 100% chomets.
Pasta is made by cooking flour and water together. Is there really an
opinion that it is not chomets gomur?
In eastern Europe one of the problematical kitchen utensils was the
'lokshen bretl' = the board on which lokshen was chopped (you couldn't
buy ready-to-cook lokshen in Eastern Europe). It was customary to be
mafkir the lokshen bretl and leave it on the street because it could not
be cleaned adequately and was considered to be ingrained with
chomets. (Of, course, with several hundred such boards in the street
over Pesach, very few disappeared, and the former owners able to reclaim
legitimately after Pesach was over.)
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Selling Chomets
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Percy Mett wrote:
> 2) I am interested in the suggestion that pasta is not 100% chomets.
> Pasta is made by cooking flour and water together. Is there really an
> opinion that it is not chomets gomur?
The gemara gives two signs of what makes something chametz, both related
to process that occurs when flour and water are mixed together along with
yeast. One is related to a stringiness that the dough takes on, the other
related to the surface of the dough cracking. My father related that in
Europe, even if you did not add yeast, there was a reasonable chance to
obtain what I will call "real" chametz, as there may have been enough of
the yeast organism is the air, as people would make bread as a regular
part of village life. When he came to America, he said that he mixed
together flour and water and let it sit to see how long it would take
until it reached the level that the gemara defined as chametz. I do not
remember whether he said it ever got there, but if it did, it was after a
very long time (days not minutes). It is in this sense that I question
whether pasta falls under "real" chametz. The history of how we have taken
as halacha that any flour and water that is mixed together and let sit for
18 minutes has a din of chametz would be an interesting submission, but I
can pretty much guarantee that it would not meet the gemaras standard for
Chametz.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 48
