Volume 64 Number 94
Produced: Wed, 24 Feb 21 12:19:09 +0000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Doing Laundry Halachically
[Martin Stern]
Need for a minyan at chuppas
[Martin Stern]
Sim Shalom
[Stuart Pilichowski]
Tachanun on Purim Meshulash (3)
[Menashe Elyashiv Perets Mett Immanuel Burton]
The Megillah and Women's Names
[Perets Mett]
Timing of Parshat Zachor
[Martin Stern]
Waiving mourning practices
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Doing Laundry Halachically
Immanuel Burton wrote (MJ 64#93):
>
> In MJ 64#92, Professor Levine highlighted the ruling by The Council of Erudite
> Torah Sages regarding washing men's and women's clothing together at the same
> time in the same washing machine. I have just one question about this:
>
> Can I wash a mixed load of men's and women's clothing if one of the types of
> clothing is double-wrapped?
I presume that Immanuel has the precedent of cooking meat and dairy dishes
together in an oven provided they are double wrapped.
He must be relying on the well known principle "Ein mitasseik be'arayot
vechalavim - shekein neheneh [It is not possible to claim one was otherwise
preoccupied (and therefore did not have the required intent to sin) when it
comes to sexual transgressions and the consumption of forbidden food - since
he has the physical benefit from them (even without intent)], to make this
connection.
There would appear to be one major difference between the two types of sin:
some of the former carry the death penalty (either at the hands of heaven
[karet] or of beit din) whereas the latter are only punished by malkot [39
lashes].
It is possible that mixed laundry may not be considered arayot mamash
[actual sexual sins] but only avizrayu de'arayot [secondary acts connected
to sexual sins] but clearly a ba'al nefesh [a person who is careful in
mitzvot and (lehavdil) aveirot] would keep far away from such lewd behaviour
anyway. However, the double wrapping might be used as a snif [subsidiary
supporting argument] not to require the person to destroy the garments.
Perhaps one might demand, as a kenas [penalty], that the garments be washed
separately before further use - vetzarich iyun [and this requires more careful
consideration].
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Need for a minyan at chuppas
Susan Buxfield wrote (MJ 64#93):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#92):
>
>> Susan Buxfield wrote (MJ 64#91):
>>
>>> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#90):
>>>
>>>> Why he refers to Shulchan Aruch, Eben HaEzer 34:4, eludes me - it is
>>>> concerned with birchat erusin which should be said with a minyan but are
>>>> valid even without one. This would appear to be irrelevant to birchot
>>>> nissuin
>>>
>>> AFAIK birchot erusin and birchot nissuin are the same thing. The brachot can
>>> be recited at any time, starting at the erusin.
>>
>> They have completely different purposes though we perform both together
>> nowadays to avoid the sort of problems evident throughout Mas. Ketubot ...
>
> Of course they are, but the discussion was not concerning erusin and nissuim
> but rather birchot erusin and birchot nissuin which I maintained are the same.
They are completely different: birchot erusin is a birchat hamitzvah whereas
birchot nissuin is a birchat hoda'ah. If the former were omitted, the erusin
would still be effective so long as the man (or his agent) gave the ring (or
any equivalent object of value) to the woman in the presence of two valid
witnesses. The latter require a minyan and form the essence of the nissuin,
at least lechatchila [in the first instance].
> ...
>>> While brachot are an integral part of any Jewish ceremony only when there is
>>> a mandatory bracha d'oraitha does its lack of recital invalidate the action
>>> about to be taken.
>>
>> All berachot are derabbanan [Rabbinically ordained, MOD] and therefore
>> cannot invalidate an action bedieved [ex post facto].
>
> Except for Birkat HaMazon. If you don't say the paragraph "retzeh" after
> eating a Shabbat meal, it is as if nothing was said and birkat hamazon has to
> be repeated.
Susan is correct - I apologise for my error. Some hold that birchat hatorah
is also d'oraitha based on the implication of "Ki shem Hashem ekra, havu
godel lElokeinu [As I call on the name of Hashem, assign greatness to our
G-d]!"
> ...
>>> Martin then discusses whether a minyan could be arranged for a town like
>>> Darwen. That is purely a matter of logistics where the wish is to fulfil
>>> the issue in the best possible manner.
>>
>> Susan has misunderstood the point I was making. In the Middle Ages, it was
>> quite common for Jews to live in small communities which did not have a
>> minyan. Because of the danger involved in traveling because of highwaymen
>> etc., it was difficult to bring people from outside to complete a minyan so a
>> chuppah would have had to be held with fewer and the sheva berachot could not
>> be recited. Nowadays this is generally not the case and it is hardly even
>> inconvenient to call people from elsewhere if necessary so the special
>> heterim [leniencies, MOD] are hardly relevant. I chose Darwen as a place
>> where I only knew of one Jewish family.
>
> I would suggest the point has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. There is the
> optimal and the minimal way of doing things depending on the circumstances
> even in our times.
Agreed but to perform a chuppah in the absence of a minyan is very much a
case of sha'at hadechak [extreme emergency], something that should only be done
as a last resort. Unlike the situation in the Middle Ages where it might have
been dangerous for people to travel even from one village to another, but
nowadays it is no great problem to call a few people to make a minyan so
whether one could rely on this particular leniency is moot.
>>> He then suggests that perhaps without brachot, relationships may not be
>>> permitted even though there is 100% Kiddushin.
>
>> Kiddushin does not permit relationships. For that one requires nissuin which
>> are basically the sheva berachot under the chuppah.
>
> While kiddushin is technically erusin, the word is often used for the entire
> ceremony since today in most cases erusin is followed immediately by nissuin.
Clearly we are here descending into a semantic dispute. I am using the word
'kiddushin' in its strict meaning as erusin (as I thought I had made clear from
the beginning) whereas Susan is using it in the more colloquial sense of
marriage generally.
>>> The parallel to Chuppat Niddah is not relevant since in that case her body
>>> is> what deters a relationship. While the issue of Massechet Kalla is that
>>> she has a right to expect brachot. If she is willing to forgo then there's
>>> nothing to prevent a relationship.
>>
>> On the contrary Massechet Kallah states specifically that "A bride without
>> berachah is forbidden to her husband like a niddah without immersion". If
>> Susan were correct, there would be no real objection to a couple living
>> together outside marriage (provided she immerses each month). But this is
>> what is considered zenut [licentious behaviour]. Some hold that, where a s
>> chuppah ha had to be conducted without a minyan, the couple cannot cohabit
>> until such time as they can assemble a minyan for the recital of the sheva
>> berachot.
>
> See Even HaEzer 26-1 Rem"a where it states "However, if she dedicates herself
> exclusively for him and she immerses for him, there are those who would say
> that this is allowed and she would be a pilegesh [a mistress in common
> English] as described in the Torah and there are those (Rambam) who say that
> this is forbidden.
>
> The Beit Shmuel (Para 2) commentary on the above Rema discusses the objections
> of M. Kallah and of other objectors. The last few words specifically state
> that only if she wants to be a wife and not a pilgesh that there has to be
> brachot.
This is purely theoretical since we do not create pilagshut in practice nowadays.
> ...
>> As for the yevamah, her original kiddushin with her first husband just
>> 'carries forward' to his brother, the yavam.
>
> Even HaEzer 166-2 states that there is no need for kiddushin, but if there is
> no kiddushin she is not acquired until after the first relationship.
>
> The rabbonim would not have instituted kiddushin with a yavam if kiddushin
> "just 'carries forward' to his brother, the yavam".
The rabbonim did not have to institute kiddushin since those of the first
husband are effective in creating the relevant zikah [connection] to the yavam.
>
>> The yibbum is equivalent to the final stage of nissuin. If she objects, he
>> cannot force her any more than any husband can force his wife.
>
> However Even HaEzer 166-7 states that if he did force her against her will she
> is acquired as a yavamah unlike Kiddushin where her prior consent is required
> in order for her to be considered as having been acquired as a wife. Obviously
> no one would or should condone such behaviour.
This is because yibbum is equivalent to nissuin and NOT kiddushin / erusin.
>>> What is important to comprehend is that the main purpose of Kiddushin is
>>> to provide financial security to the bride. Food and clothing in return for
>>> financial interests in his wife's income and property.
>>
>> This is specific to nissuin, an arusah has no financial claim on her husband
>> nor he on her.
>
> As stated above most people understand kiddushin to include nissuin.
Most people might understand kiddushin to include nissuin BUT I am using the
word in its original connotation, as I explained above.
> In any case an arusa can demand from the groom to provide her food after a
> year has elapsed without nissuin.
Or give her a get.
> ...
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Sim Shalom
At shachrit, Minhag Ashkenaz and Sfard both recite sim shalom. At mincha
Ashkenaz in Israel recite sim shalom while some say shalom rov.
Some say sim shalom at mincha is recited only when the reading of the torah
takes place, i.e. Shabbat afternoon or a Ta'anit tzibbur. The posuk - ki beohr
panecha is related to torah learning.
For others, sim shalom is considered an addition to the duchaning of the
kohanim. No duchaning at mincha - no sim shalom.
The Rov would say sim shalom always and never shalom rov - even at maariv -
because shalom rov isn't mentioned in the gemara.
Why do some in Israel always say sim shalom at mincha?
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <menely2@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun on Purim Meshulash
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#93):
>
> While in certain circles, people grab any opportunity to omit tachanun, it
> occurred to me that this year there might be a valid reason to do so in a
> walled city on Sunday 16 Adar when the Purim seudah and mishloach manot take >
place - Purim Meshulash.
>
> I suppose that chassidim will omit it as in every year because of the hava
> amina [rejected suggestion] in Megillah 2a that the megillah can be read on
> 'shitsar veshivsar' [16th and 17th Adar].
>
> Does anyone know what is the non-chassidic minhag in Yerushalayim in a year
> like this one which occurs fairly seldom?
In the distant past, there was no question since, for many years Jews did not
live in Jerusalem, and there was no Purim Meshulash.
I did see in a book from about 200 years ago, the author discussed saying
Tachanun and Tikkun Rachel in Jerusalem. Of course in any other place it was said.
I spoke to a very learned Rav, who said that even R. O. Yosef's sons have
different opinions. This morning I saw in Yalkut Yosef, that in cities that are
in doubt, like Lod, it should not be said, but other places should say it, and
added a note that there is an opinion that, for honoring Jerusalem, do not say
it there.
O.K., the best way is to have a groom or brit in shul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun on Purim Meshulash
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 64#93):
Tachanun is not said in Yerusholayim on all three days of Purim meshulosh
Rav YM Tucazinsky writes in Ir Hakodesh Vehamikdash vol. III ch. 26 p. 355
<https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14626&st=&pgnum=359>
that those in Jerusalem recite neither tachanun nor lamnatzeiach on Sunday 16 Adar.
Rav S. Deblitzky in Purim Meshulash, ch. 7 p. 132
<https://tablet.otzar.org/pages/?&restore=1&t=1584620434100&pagenum=132&book=15259>
writes that those outside of a walled city do recite tachanun and lamnatzeiach
on Sunday 16 Adar, but notes that one who is accustomed not to do so has a valid
custom.
<https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/112111/skip-tachanun-on-the-sunday-of-purim-meshulash>
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says that Tachanun should also be omitted worldwide
in sympathy with Yerusholayim (Halichos Shlomo: Moadim chapter 21.)
Happy Purim!!
PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Tachanun on Purim Meshulash
In esponse to Martin Stern (MJ 64#93):
This question is discussed on the yeshiva.co web site:
https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/6233
where Rabbi David Sperling writes:
> The Kaf HaHaim 131, 102 writes that in such a year Tachanun is not
> recited in Jerusalem (or any walled city) on the Sunday, the 16th of
> Adar, as it is Purim on that day in that location. In the work Ishay
> Yisrael (25,17 (59)) he quotes the Zeh HaShulchan who rules that in
> such a case nowhere else recites Tachanun either. This is because
> either the 16th is the replacement day for the 15th, and on the 15th
> no-one says Tachanun, or because everywhere else needs to give honor
> the Purim of the walled cities.
Now, what about Psalm 20 (La'menatzaich)? Is this recited in Shacharit
on the 'third day' of Purim outside a walled city?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 09:01 AM
Subject: The Megillah and Women's Names
Yakir Hameiri wrote (MJ 64#93):
> Prof Levine wrote (MJ 64#92):
>> The scroll should be referred to as the Megillah of Mordechai's Niece.
> Please explain who Mordechai's niece was and where she is described as such in
> the Megillah.
Mordechai is described as Ish Yechidi; thus he had no siblings and ergo no niece
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Timing of Parshat Zachor
Immanuel Burton wrote (MJ 64#93):
> In order to fulfil the commandment to remember Amalek, we read Parshat Zachor
> on an annual basis. The reading was instituted to take place on the Shabbat
> before Purim in order to have this reading take place in proximity to Purim,
> when Haman was defeated.
>
> Before the Purim story happened, when was Parshat Zachor read? Or was the
> mitzvah of remembering Amalek fulfilled differently?
Obviously in Ki Teitzei where it also is read as maftir.
For those who were careful to follow the Chasam Sofer's opinion that this
mitzvah be done every twelve months, there is a problem in a leap year. Nowadays
we fulfil this chumra by having kavannah in Ki Teitzei in a year preceding a
leap year. Presumably in the pre-Purim times, they would have had to do the
mitzvah with the original encounter with Amalek in Beshallach, probably every
year since they would not have known whether there would be an extra Adar that year.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 24,2021 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Waiving mourning practices
There is an interesting article by R' S. Brody in the upcoming Hakira concerning
parents waiving their "right" to mourning after shloshim. My question, almost
partially addressed in the article, is, assuming such a waiver is effective, is
it what HKB"H wants of us?
Such a waiver certainly would help the children avoid difficult issues, not just
event-related such as weddings, but every day issues as well. Assuming they
could still choose to observe the strictures they choose but from a strictly
halachic basis will their reward (as a stand in for HKBH's happiness) be as
great? From a hashkafic viewpoint is the waiver sending the right message?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 64 Issue 94