Volume 26 Number 48
                      Produced: Tue May 13  7:22:51 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Avodah Zarah and Gold
         [Moishe Kimelman]
Burning the Hair in the Bonfire at Miron
         [Tzvi Roszler]
Gold idols
         [Zvi Goldberg]
Omer and Chadash
         [Isaac A. Zlochower]
Rare Haftorah
         [Sam Gamoran]
Sfeera Shehecheeyanu and Aveilus
         [Isaac Balbin]
Succah on Shemini Atzeres (2)
         [Eliyahu Segal, Elie Rosenfeld]
Succah on Shmini Atseret
         [Paul Merling]
Yom Haatzmaut and Yom Yerushalyim during Sefirat Haomer
         [Tszvi Klugerman]


From: Moishe Kimelman <kimel@...>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 17:13:48 +1000
Subject: Avodah Zarah and Gold

In mj 46 Eli Pollock wrote:

>Gold does not need to be melted down . As stated in the gemara in avodah
>zarah - scraping off a part of the image ( i.e. the nose) in sufficient.
> This was observed and i believe  reported on by yigal yadin in the book
>"bar kochba". the jews then had stolen dishes from the romans. these
>copper plates(pictured in the book) had images of greek mythology on
>them. in each instance part of the facial image was scrapped off in
>keeping with the halacha.

This would only help if the image was not worshiped as a god. The image
is then deformed in order to permit ownership by a Jew. If the image was
worshiped, as is the case in the gold being discussed until now, then in
order for it to be permitted it would require that a non-Jew deface or
abuse it.


From: <TzviR@...> (Tzvi Roszler)
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 01:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Burning the Hair in the Bonfire at Miron

Possibility the reason for burning the hair in the bonfire at Miron,
since the hair are cosidered "ORLO", the halocho is "Orlo Bisreifoh" (it
must be burned). Just a thought in reply to the person who asked why
they burn the hair.

Tzvi Roszler     


From: <zg@...> (Zvi Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 00:05:31 EDT
Subject: Gold idols

	Aaron Gross asked if one could melt idols and use them as
(Jewish) wedding rings.
	At first glance, I would think not. Idols are totally "assur
b'hanaah" -- prohibited from receiving benefit, and therefore it does
not matter what form the idol takes.
	However, the mishna in Avoda Zarah 4:5 states : "How does he
nullify it ?  ( Meaning, a gentile can willingly do an act which shows
disgrace and abandonment to his idol, thereby nullifying it and
permitting it for benefit.) He may cut off the tip of its ear, or the
tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger, or dent it ... and it is
nullified."  This could possibly be permitting a melted idol.
	On the other hand, the cases the mishna gives are ones that show
disgrace to the idol. Melting gold is not necessarily a show of
contempt, it is neutral. It could even be a show of favor to the idol --
melting it to fashion something else, possibly a more "beautiful"
idol. Furthermore, the *gentile* must be the one to damage it, not a
	I am far from an expert in this matter. Perhaps the Gemara on
this mishna mentions melting the idol.
	Either way, I would not want *my* daughter using such a ring :-)



From: Isaac A. Zlochower <zlochoia@...>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:40:30 -0700
Subject: Omer and Chadash

It is appropriate to raise the issue this week of the prohibition of
eating "chadash", i.e. grain from crops that were planted after Pesach,
untill the following Pesach (actually, the following 17 Nissan), since
we are currently in the midst of the 49 days of the counting from the
associated mitzvah (commandment) of bringing the Omer - and this week's
Torah portion (Emor) is the source of the mitzvah.  The question of the
applicability of the prohibition to crops from countries far from Israel
is an ancient and still ongoing debate (sometimes heated).  It achieved
particular poignancy in the northern lattitudes of Europe when the
planting season began after Pesach.  How were people to survive for 6
months between the harvesting of the new grain crops and the next
Pesach?  It was the near-universal practice in Europe to rely on the
minority of legal authorities who permitted "chadash".  This custom was
carried over to the new world, where spring planting was once the sole
means of obtaining a grain crop.  Later a variety of wheat was
introduced that permitted fall planting and wintering over.  The latter
crop does not present a "chodosh" problem, but our flour and grain
products are generally a mixture of spring and winter wheat varieties.
The following exposition is aimed at showing a fundamental basis for the
prevalent lenient practice (note: I am offering this for information
only, please do not use me as any kind of legal authority):

In Emor (Lev 23:10 - 14), we find the following passages:
"Address the Israelites and tell them, 'When you come to the land that I
am giving you and you will harvest its crops, then shall you bring the
Omer, the first of your crops (barley) to the Priest'".  The next verses
deal with the Omer sacrafice, and are followed by, "Neither bread nor
roasted grain nor fresh kernels shall you eat untill this very day (16
Nissan), untill you have brought the offering of your G-D - this is an
eternal decree for your generations in all their dwelling places."
The last verse seems to lay down a universal prohibition against eating
"chadash" anywhere, and is certainly the basis of those sages of the
Mishna (Tana-im) and Gemara (Amora-im), early post-talmudic authorities
(Rishonim) and later authorities (Achronim) in prohibiting "chadash" the
world-over.  Thus, we find a blanket, undisputed statement in the end of
tractate (Mishna) Orlah:  "Chadash" is Biblically prohibited
everywhere.  This statement is considered definitive by most of the
post-talmudic authorities.  However, we find that the matter is subject
to a dispute between Rabbe Eliezer and the sages in a Mishna in the
Babylonian Talmud: Kiddushin 36b, wherein the sages appear to equate
"chadash" and the Omer.  If the Omer is only brought from Israeli crops
(Lev 23:10), then "chadash" is also pertinent only to Israeli crops. 
This reasoning is made clearly in the Jerusalem Talmud on the above
Mishna in tractate Orlah.  The talmud there asserts that the Mishna in
Orlah is based on the view of Rabbe Eliezer, who emphasizes the Biblical
verse (Lev 23:14) which seems to prohibit "chadash" everywhere.  While
the sages hold that it is only the produce (grain) of Israel that is
prohibited the world-over untill the Omer is brought in Israel (or
untill Nissan 16 or 17).

The Jerusalem Talmud is the key, it appears, to rationalizing the
lenient position that Torah observant world Jewry has taken with regard
to "Chadash".  The blanket prohibition enunciated in Mishna Orlah is
taken to reflect the view of an individual, and the opposing view of the
sages is fitted into a simple reading of the text that harmonizes the
seemingly disparate viewpoints of the above verses 10 and 14.

Is the authority of the Jerusalem talmud sufficient to offset the
contrary view held by the last generation of Babylonian sages (Rav
Ashi's disciples and, possibly, Ravena) in the Babylonian tractate
Menachot 68b?  I would argue that there are other instances where
ancient European traditions are based on the Jerusalem (Israeli) sages
and practice despite the contrary position of the Babylonian sages.  For
example, the arrangement of the 4 scrolls in the head Tefilin (that
described by Rashi) correspond to the ancient Israeli practice and not
the Babylonian practice as described by the last famous Babylonian Gaon,
Rav Hai (quoted by Rabbenu Tam).  Moreover, the Rambam changed his
Tefilin to correspond to the views of the Israeli sages despite the
prevalent practice in Spain of using the Babylonian arrangement.  He
codified the Israeli tradition in his Misneh Torah and counseled the
sages of Provence (southern France) to follow suit.  Even the blessing
made on the Tefilin seems to follow the views of the Israeli sages (1
blessing for each Tefila) and not that of the Babylonian sages
(apparently 1 blessing for both).  It appears that we are permitted to
follow ancient practices in Israel despite the contrary practise in
Babylonia (although the Babylonian talmud is considered more
authoritative) since European Jewry stems from Israel and not
Babylonia.  If our practice is sufficiently ancient, then it may be
considered to have been brought from Israel in Roman times, and is still

Have a good Shabbos.
Yitzchok Zlochower


From: Sam Gamoran <gamoran@...>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:52:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Rare Haftorah

> From: Michael J Broyde <mbroyde@...>
> By the way, that is the only situation I am aware of when the same
> haftorah can be read in shul two shabbatot in a row, as zachor will have
> been seven days before.

There is a minhag in some communities of reading the Haftorah from Amos
("Halo K'bnei Kushi'im) for both Acharei-Mot and Kidoshim even in years (such
as this one) where the same haftora would be repeated two weeks in a row.

Sam Gamoran
Motorola Israel Ltd. Wireless Access Department


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 14:16:30 +1000
Subject: Re: Sfeera Shehecheeyanu and Aveilus

  | From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
  |             Isaac Balbin reports that Reb Herschel Shecter (in the Rav's
  | name) compared the Three Weeks and Sfeera to the Father-Mother 12 month
  | Avelus(mourning). I do not understand this. The Shulchan Aruch stresses
  | only 2 main Aveilus customs during this period, no marriages and no
  | haircuts/shaving. The Isur of haircuts is not characteristic of the 12
  | month Aveilus but of the Shloshim -- even though we continue to avoid
  | haircuts /shaving after the Shloshim until we are yelled at. One of the
  | main Halachos of the 12 month Aveilus is the prohibition of Seudas
  | Mireius (a dinner or party with friends). But the Aroch Hashulchan
  | specifically allows a Seudas Mireius in the Yimei Hasfeera or days of
  | Sfeerah. Maybe there are other Poskim who forbid this and the Rav
  | favored their view? It would seem that the Aveilus of Yimei Hasfeera is
  | unique and cannot be compared to any other Aveilus.

I am not sure the Rov would have been too concerned that the Aruch
Hashulchon had a different hanhogo for Sefira. The definition of Seudas
Mireius needs to be clarified for a start, and then I think you will
find people have differing minhogim of them during the 12 months. Some
will invite guests but will not go to someone elses home for a
meal. Others will provided there isn't a Simcha. Other will even if
there is a Simcha provided there isn't music etc etc. The main thing is
to associate the *level* of mourning.  The minhogim will vary
accordingly. Similarly, you wouldn't find an early psak on listening to
CD's in the 12 months. Many would have simply extrapolated from live
music; others may have chosen differently. Eventually someone will
codify certain hanhogos as halocho/minhag yisroel. Whether or not they
*are* is a matter for you and your community and your eyes!


From: Eliyahu Segal <segaleli@...>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 14:44:03 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Succah on Shemini Atzeres

> From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
> As a parallel, many (most/all?) opinions on "gebrukhts" (foods with
> matza cooked into them) consider this prohibition rabbinic, rather than
> Torah.  For this reason, many people who do not eat "gebrukhts" the rest
> of Pesach do so on the eighth day of Pesach.

	I may be wrong but I have never heard that "gebruchkhts" is
derabanan.  I believe that it is a minhag that was started because maybe
there was some uncooked flour in the matzah that would then be exposed
to water and become chametz.  However mixing water with matzah is muttar
(permitted) according to all opinions, unless of course you have the
	Eliyahu Segal

From: Elie Rosenfeld <erosenfe@...>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 16:27:52 -0400
Subject: Succah on Shemini Atzeres

So far, none of the replies about the minhag not to use the Sukkah on
Shmini Atzeres night have mentioned the reason I grew up hearing.
Namely, that making Kiddush in the Sukkah that night would be a tartay
d'sasray [self-contradiction].  After all, we are reciting "Yom Shmini
Hag Ha'Atzeres Hazeh" which states that today is definitely no longer
Sukkos, while sitting in a Sukkah at the same time!  Whereas in the
morning Kiddush, there is no mention of the specific holiday and hence
the minhag to go back into the Sukkah for that Kiddush.

I'd also like to add that in no other way is Shmini Atzeres treated like
a safek [possible] day of Sukkos - not in the musaf, Torah reading,
kiddush, bentching, etc. (let alone lulav!)  Sitting in the Sukkah is
the sole exception, and to those brought up not to, doing so would seem
very strange.  I guess it's all what you're used to.



From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Mon, 12 May 97 17:32:00 PDT
Subject: Succah on Shmini Atseret

         Arthur Einhorn (vol. 26:45) reports that the Satmar Rav Zatsal
did eat in his private Succah on Shmini Atseres. What is significant is
that he did not instruct his Chasidim to change along with him. My
understanding is that few if any chasidim followed his new custom.
        In that same issue, Steve White in his discussion of Succah
writes that G'brukts on Pesach is a D'rabanan. I do not understand. Does
he mean that following customs in general is a D'rabanan (Do not forsake
the teachings of your mother?) But if he means that there is a specific
Isur D'rabanan on Gebrukts, this is a great Chidush/novelty and I would
like to know the source. The Rav Shulchan Aruch treats the whole
thing(the mixing of liquid and Matso) as a real Chshad -- close to a
D'oraise, as he writes that one can see that many Matsos have unbaked
flour in them. Many Lubavitcher and other Russian chasidim do not eat
Matso together with other food, because they fear they will create
Chometz on Pesach. I have heard that they remove the Matso from the
table during the Seuda. But Hungarian chasidim treat G'brukts as an
ordinary Chumre, even allowing young children to eat it.

 The story is told that the Chofets Chayim stopped eating G'brukts. When
asked, "did not the Vilner Gaon eat G'brukts", he answered,"If I had the
Gaon's Matsos I would also eat G'brukts."  .


From: <Klugerman@...> (Tszvi Klugerman)
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 01:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Yom Haatzmaut and Yom Yerushalyim during Sefirat Haomer

I am looking for responsa on the matter of celebrating Yom Haatzmaut and
Yom Yerushalyim during Sefirat Haomer.

 I am not looking for the discussions on Hallel although they will
overlap with the subject, but specifically the permission to have
dancing and live music during the omer for these celebrations.
 As the Mechaber seems to be of the opinion that all year it is
forbidden to have live music I am looking for the sources cited.
 Also if the concept is based on Pesachim 117a ,then is there a
difference between celebrating in Israel and Chutz La'aretz?



End of Volume 26 Issue 48