Volume 18 Number 29
Produced: Sun Feb 5 23:58:15 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chumras
[Ben Yudkin]
Kedushas Shviis in Chul
[Yechiel Wachtel]
Seven Clean Days (2)
[Heather Luntz, Chaim Steinmetz]
Seven Days of 'Tahara'
[Moshe Koppel]
Shaatnez (3)
[Jan David Meisler, Richard Friedman, Shalom Kohn]
Shaatnez (Ira Robinson V18#26)
[Yehudah Edelstein]
Shmitta
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Tallis in Davening
[Nachum Hurvitz]
Tzitzit
[Yehudah Edelstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <oujac@...> (Ben Yudkin)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 18:53:37 +0000
Subject: Chumras
Some recent postings have expressed surprise at how a mashgiach [kashrut
supervisor] could pass a restaurant as kosher yet still not eat there.
This seems to me not to present a problem. It is perfectly proper that
a mashgiach should simply assure that the required halachot regarding
kashrut are adhered to, unless the establishment is setting itself up to
be on a 'mehadrin' level of kashrut. It is also proper that if he is on
a high level of learning and practice, the mashgiach might want to take
upon himself chumrot [stringencies] not required by the halachot of
kashrut. Hence, he may in effect be saying that an establishment
contravenes no kashrut prohibition but does not adhere to certain
chumrot which he wishes to observe.
IMHO, this corresponds to the proper practice of chumrot. On the one
hand, hammachmir tavo "alav beracha [blessing will come to the one who
adopts stringencies]. On the other, in the absence of a particular
reason such as a universal minhag, we would not demand that everyone
else follow our own chumra on a given issue. The Mishnah Berurah says
[170:16] that when staying at another's house, we should try to keep our
own chumrot in private. IMH understanding, this is done so as not to
embarrass the host by seeming to show off how pious we are. He also
says that if asked to do something by the host, even if it is a little
coarse but still permitted, we should do so. IMHO, this could be
interpreted to imply that for the sake of the mitzvah of derech eretz
[courtesy] to the host, there may even be circumstsances in which it may
be preferable to relax our usual chumrot.
Additional sources on the pros and cons of keeping chumrot, particularly
touching the relationship between a personal stringency and what it is
right to expect from other people, would be appreciated.
With thanks,
Ben Yudkin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yechiel Wachtel <YWACHTEL@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 21:36:14 PST
Subject: Kedushas Shviis in Chul
>From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
>labeled as "in dispute." What I labeled as in error was the assertion
>that exported fruit produced bekedushat sheveit was prohibited to be
>eaten. I stand by that statement and I am unaware of any authority who
>prohibits a Jew in America from eating fruit of Israel produced during
>the shemitta. of course, one has to treat it bekedushat sheviet, and be
>aware of zman biur issues, but that is a different matter.
I hope I understand these quotes properly and am not reading
them out of context, if so my apologies.
Last year, at the beginning of shmeita there were several
classes given on the laws of shmeeta given by Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, and
Rabbi Leff. We were taught that keushas shviies fruit were definitely
not allowed to be taken out of Israel. You can find this written too,
in the Shmitta book that was reprinted by Degel and is used as a
handbook by many in our communities. There is also an instruction sheet
distributed with Carmel wines Otzer bais din wines (Rabbi Yanofski) that
mentions that the wine is not to be taken out of Israel. On some of the
other laws on the list he mentions "there are some who hold" but not on
this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Heather Luntz <luntz@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 00:05:00 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Seven Clean Days
As related matter to the question under discussion:
I was listening to a tape of Rabbi Frand's the other day on the subject
of negia (and is it d'orisa or d'rabbanan), and he was dicussing the
Ramban's shita, that it is d'rabbanan, and the Ramban's proof, from a
gemorra in Shabbas, which deals with a talmid chocham whose life was cut
short because he touched his wife during the seven clean days. The Ramban
derives from the language of the gemorra in explaining what it was that
the talmid chocham did wrong, that negia couldn't be an issur d'orisa or
the talmud would have stated so explicitly and not used the language that it
did.
Rabbi Frand brought various other opinions as to why the gemorra used the
language it did - but I was wondering why, even if negia is an issur
d'orisa as the Rambam says (in cases in which on a d'orisa level a man
is not permitted to a woman) if the 7 clean days are at most d'rabbanan
(or women took them on themselves) - then since on a d'orisa level the wife
*could* have gone to mikvah and been permitted to him, why doesn't that
change the equation and make negia in those circumstances not d'orisa
even where during the previous period it would have been?
And of course I have absolutely *no* idea where to start looking for an
answer (that is the problem with these tapes - they are a wonderful
resource but they don't answer questions).
Gut Voch
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CSTEINMETZ@...> (Chaim Steinmetz)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 18:10:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Seven Clean Days
For those couples that cannot have relations while the woman is
ovulating because she reamins a Niddah, there are other Halachic
solutions. Many (not all) poskim allow a procedure called IUI
(intra-uterine-insemination) whereby the sperm of the husband is placed
into the uterus by the doctor, and so the woman can be impregnated
despite the fact that she is a nidah. According to R. Moshe Feinstien
(Igrot Moshe EH II:18) this procedure does not have the problem of bnei
niddah and hotzaat zerah livatalah.
Chaim Steinmetz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <koppel@...> (Moshe Koppel)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 12:25:58 +0200
Subject: Seven Days of 'Tahara'
Regarding possible avenues of leniency concerning 'bnos yisrael
hichmiru al atzman' see Kuntres Shiurim of Rav Gustman at the very end
of Kiddushin.
-Moish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan David Meisler <jm8o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 13:15:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Shaatnez
Ira Robinson asked if there was an issur of shaatnez on objects other
than clothing. From my understanding of the prohibition of shaatnez, I
can't see it being a problem. The Torah says "Don't wear shaatnez....".
If the Rabbis extended the prohibition, I don't know, but I didn't
think they did.
Yochanan Meisler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Friedman <RF@...>
Date: 02 Feb 1995 14:09:14 GMT
Subject: Shaatnez
Ira Robinson asks (MJ 18:26) whether the shaatnez prohibition applies
to non-clothing items, in particular a book binding. He says he recalls
hearing that, in interwar Poland, some Jews refused to sit on the railway
and tram seats because they thought the coverings were shaatnez. I also
heard this, I believe from R. Seymour Siegel, z"l. The explanation was
based on Lev. 19:19 ("U'Veged kil'ayim shaatnez lo ya'aleh aleicha" -- "a
garment of mixtures, shaatnez, shall not come up on you."). They were
concerned because the seat cushions were very soft, so that when a person
sat in them, the fabric would "come up on" him/her. My understanding of
the halacha is that the prohibition is basically limited to garments and
would thus not apply to book bindings. Whether the "soft seat cushion"
concern is in fact normative halacha, I do not know. I do not have code
citations at hand, but assume other posters will provide them.
Richard Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <skohn@...> (Shalom Kohn)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 20:23:13 -0800
Subject: Shaatnez
Shatnes applies only to mixtures of wool and linen, with threads of wool
and linen combined as warp and woof being biblically prohibited, and
other mixtures prohibited rabinically.
Sitting on shatnes is also prohibited, "shema ya'aleh nimah al bi-saro"
i.e. lest a thread cover his flesh. Once a "meshulach" came to our home
and declined my offer to sit on the sofa, explaining that he once sat on
a sofa in a home he visited and later discovered that the fabric was
shatnes. Needless to say, he did not make a very good impression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <yehudah@...> (Yehudah Edelstein)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 20:49:29 +0200
Subject: Shaatnez (Ira Robinson V18#26)
Yes I did hear that the Isur of Shaatnez also includes sitting or lying on
a couch with Shaatnez. In Israel you can find mattresses that have been
checked for Shaatnez (i.e. Sealy's).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <yitzchok.adlerstein@...> (Yitzchok Adlerstein)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 95 00:09:38 -0800
Subject: Shmitta
Rabbi Michael Broyde correctly pointed out that even those who do not
rely on the heter mechirah [the sale of agricultural tracts to non-Jews
during shmittah], the guarding or even working of such fields does not
prohibit their produce from consumption.
There are still precautions that the consumer must be aware of. (We
have discussed these issues privately, and Rabbi Broyde himself alluded
to them in a recent posting, but I believe that more detail is in
order.) Firstly, produce grown during the shmittah year has halachic
kedushah [holiness]. Laws proscribe the wasting of any edible parts of
the produce. Disposal of leftovers is a problem that must be dealt
with, when edible material remains after eating.
(Those in Eretz Yisrael often have special containers in which these
remains are placed until they rot beyond the point of possible
consumption, after which they are disposed of by conventional means.)
Also significant are the rules that apply to the zman be-ur [the time
that the particular product disappears from the tree, etc. to the point
that it is not plentifully available to all], at which anyone holding
any shmittah-grown product must get rid of it. People in Israel have
calendars, showing the deadlines for different products. Many of these
deadlines are already past; for other products, this time limit presents
a real problem, especially for items that are stored for a long time,
rather than consumed immediately (e.g. wine, preserves, canned fruit.)
I too, though, believe that Rabbi Broyde is correct in his approach to
the general issue. The proper response to a halachic problem with
shmittah produce is not to ban Israeli products, for fear of the
presence of shmittah-grown material, but to learn enough halacha to deal
effectively with the problem. (There are zechusim [merits] attached to
the eating of produce from Eretz Yisrael. It is claimed that when the
Rothschilds sent a bottle of wine to the Netziv in Volozhin from the
newly established vineyards of Israel, he wouldn't drink from the wine -
at least until he ran back to his room and changed into Shabbos garb, in
honor of the mitzvah!) The consumer who simply does not have access to
proper halachic counsel may indeed have to stay away from Israeli
products that may have been grown in shmittah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachum Hurvitz <NHurvitz@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 08:52:52 -0500
Subject: Tallis in Davening
The minhag at Shearith Israel in Baltimore is that any person who
receives a kibud has to wear a tallis. I recall that when I once got
"psicha"(opening the ark) during Shabbos mincha I was told by the Gabbai
to keep the talis on until after davening. Rabbi Schwab shlita, prior to
coming to KAJ in Washington Heights was the rov of this shul for many
years.
Nachum Hurvitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <yehudah@...> (Yehudah Edelstein)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 22:08:35 +0200
Subject: re: Tzitzit
When it comes to Shabbos one should be careful not to perform the Mitzvah of
Tzitzit, through some transgression of Shabbos. If the Talis-Katan is not the
proper minimum Shiur, than it is preferable not to where it outside an Eruv,
on Shabbos. There is a rabbinic debate if the material of the garment for the
Talis-Katan is not natural but rather man-made (i.e. polyester etc), then too
it should not be worn outside the Eruv, due to the Safek.
I have not heard that not having Tcheles today presents the same problem.
Can someone mention some source where it is mentioned.
In previous discussions it has been mentioned 'is Talis Katan today M'derabonon
or M'derayse'. Woolen garment with woolen Tzitziot are the best. The other
combinations present the question M'derabonon or M'derayse. The recommended
procedure that I learned is not to say a Bracha on the Talis-Katan, but rather
only on the big Talis before Davening, and have in mind both Mitzvos. One
not wearing yet a Big Talis I think should nevertheless make a Brocho Al
Mitzvas Tzitzis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 18 Issue 29