Volume 32 Number 44
                 Produced: Mon Jun  5  6:56:17 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Buying Chametz after Pesach
         [Carl Singer]
Keys on Shabbos
         [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Otzar Bet Din
         [Eli Turkel]
Pesach & Nuts
         [Catherine S. Perel]
Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures (6)
         [Jordan Hirsch, Ari Kahn, Batya Medad, Hillel (Sabba)
Markowitz, Dov Teichman, David Cohen]
         [Eli Turkel]
"Three Score and Ten"
         [David Lloyd-Jones]
Tikkunei Sofrim (2)
         [Joseph Tabory, Chaim Mateh]


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:40:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Buying Chametz after Pesach

 > 1.  There is not much of a legitimate humrah involved in a consumer
 > insisting on products raised by non-Jews during shemittah but the
 > question is how does this compare with the "kulah" of diverting economic
 > support from Jews to non-Jews?

This brings to mind the issue of where one can by from after Pesach --
it seems that we're diverting parnoseh from "Jewish" supermarkets to

There always seem to be issues re: the validity of (Chometz) sale,
merchandise coming in during Pesach, suppliers, warehouses, etc.

Any thoughts?

Carl Singer


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:19:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Keys on Shabbos

> From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
> 3 - in a town with an eruv, I still see some people using "Shabbos keys"
> -- tie tacks and the like (hardly high fashion jewelery, but I guess OK)
> I'm not sure if this is old habit, belt and suspenders, or some "frum"
> comment about the eruv.

Many people do this as a chinuch point (both for themselves and for
their children).  One friend of mine tried to be very careful by wearing
his tallis because he often visited his relatives in Lakewood (which, at
least then, did not have an eruv).  One shabbas he was putting it on and
started to leave before it was on (so had he not been stopped, it would
have been carrying).

What may be an urban legend tells of the teacher who came to Lakewood
from Israel and carried his tallis to shul the first Shabbos he was
there because he had never been in a community of that size that did not
have an eruv.

Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
 Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:54:20 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Otzar Bet Din

>     This is a much better argument--there is an arrangment, called an
> Otzar Beit Din, instituted by the Hazon Ish on the basis of a tosefta,
> where the Beit Din markets shmitta fruits (not vegetables).  This should
> indeed be encouraged wherever possible (and should, but does not always,
> lead to a drop in prices for the consumer, as the Beit Din is supposed
> only to charge expenses, not profit).  However, the consumers must learn
> the laws of how to handle sanctified fruit.  This does not apply outside
> of the Land of Israel, though, because it is forbidden to export fruit
> of the Land of Israel during the shmitta (Mishna, Shvi`it 6:5).

Just to reiterate not everyone opposed to the heter mechira accepts the
"chiddush" of Chazon Ish concerning Otzar Bet din. These groups insist
on using only imported food during shemitta.

Eli Turkel


From: Catherine S. Perel <perel@...>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:55:14 -0500
Subject: Pesach & Nuts

In the discussion of Pesach and cotton seed oil, peanut oil, and nuts,
something seems odd:

In Vol. 32, #35, Boruch Merzel wrote:

"Early rabbonim in America were lenient in permitting peanuts and
certainly peanut oil based on these facts."

The problem here is that peanuts are not nuts.  They're legumes (beans).
I didn't think beans were forbidden.

[Most Kitniut fall in the legume family, not the nut family. Mod.]

Further, we seem to consider cashews a nut, but they're not.  Cashews
are the flowers of a plant.

Would it not, therefore, be permisable to eat both peanuts and cashews
and their by-products during Pesach?

   Catherine S. Perel


From: Jordan Hirsch <TROMBAEDU@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:28:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

For my wedding, I asked R' Herschel Reichman, my M'sader kiddushin of it
was ok to take pre Chupah pictures with my to be wife, and if the week
of not seeing each other had any value. He told us that as minhagim go,
it wasn't even much of a minhag. He did tell us not to take the "Mushy"
pictures before the Chupah.


From: Ari Kahn <kahnar@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:24:42 +0300
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

In 1984 during my third year in the Rov's shiur I got engaged, as was
the custom I took my Kalla to meet Rav Soloveitchik. Among the issues
discussed was the possibility of the kalla attending the Aufruf and
taking pictures together prior to the chuppa. The discussion was
absolutely "Halacha limaaseh". My wife(kalla at the time) wanted to
attend the aufruf and we knew people who had arranged the aufruf more
than a week prior to the wedding in order to circumvent the perceived
prohibition. The Rov insisted that there was no prohibition, it was in
his words "a custom - and not our custom". He said that she could attend
the aufruf and take pictures standing next to one another prior to the

Ari Kahn

From: Batya Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 16:36:49 +0300
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

What's the point?  Why look for a heter?
Why compromise religious practice for the convenience of a photographer?
In frum communities, with understanding or frum photographers, pictures are
either taken after yichud or when the guests are eating.  the couple should
eat during yichud.  That's the best time for that "special glow."
Mazal Tov,
Batya Medad

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:25:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

> From: Ephraim Tabory <tabore@...>
> I have heard that there is a psak in the United States allowing a bride
> and groom to take wedding pictures together prior to the chuppa (even
> negiah pictures). Anyone have details?

Rav Weinberg Z'tzl of Ner Yisroel in Baltimore had given such a psak but
often the couple will refuse.  I know of a number of weddings that
followed his psak because of tircha detzibura (not sure of a good
English translation - causing pain to the community [guests]?). [burden
caused to the community, here it is the guests at the wedding. Mod.] It
appears that people are more makpid about minhag than about din.

Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
 Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun

From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:16:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

 <<Does anyone have a citation of a Psak that forbids a bride and groom
from taking wedding pictures together prior to the chupa? For this
question, I am assuming that there is no issue of negiah, either based
on no actual contact or a view that there is nothing derech chiba
involved. Mod.] >>

1. What would be the prohibition of contact/negiah between bride and
groom, being that she has gone to the Mikvah already? Once she is no
longer a Nidah, the prohibition of "Lo Sik'revu" ("Do not come close")
should not apply.

2. I've heard that the custom of the Bride and Groom not seeing each
other before the wedding was out of a concern that the Bride should not
become a Nidah from "Dam Chimud" as discussed in Shulchan Aruch Even
HoEzer 192.  However, the problem with that reasoning is that the actual
Halacha only refers to Dam Chimud that may occur at the time she begins
preparations for the wedding, and is not related to _seeing_ the
groom. And if one claims that the custom arose to also include a
prohibition of seeing the groom to prevent Dam Chimud, then seeing the
groom even at the wedding itself should cause concern that perhaps she
became a Nidah when seeing him, yet we find no such concern exists.

Dov Teichman
45th day of Omer

From: David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:31:22 -0400
Subject: Pre-Chuppah Wedding Pictures

    I have previously researched this topic and could find no source for
such a custom.  I have been to weddings of Rabbi's children where the
pictures were taken before the chuppah.  A Rav that I spoke to (I cannot
yet quote him without his permission) said that davka one should do so,
because the "custom" of the chattan and kallah not seeing each other for
various periods of time before the wedding, (the day of, or the week
before) is really a non-Jewish custom, and do follow it id to violate
"Chukat Goyim". Another consideration is the "tircha" (burden) placed
upon the guest who have to wait significant amount of time after the
Chuppah for the pictures to be taken, when there is no basis for this
and they could have been done earlier.  As an aside (but a more
interesting thread) isn't it amazing how something with no basis has
become a "cardinal custom" of the wedding day?  David I. Cohen


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:42:05 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Shemitta

> Joshua Hosseinof  wrote concerning the Heter Michra durring Shmita
> > But, when I am a consumer in the
> > supermarket in Israel, I do not have a big loss if I have to pay
> > slightly more for produce that did not come from the heter mechirah.

That is basically the attitude of the Badatz of Jerusalem who rely on
imported food rather than use food grown in places in Israel that
observe the shemitta laws. However, many other rabbis object and feel
that places that support shemitta should be supported and not be ignored
by using imports.

In terms of food grown according to the heter mechira as far as I know
(almost) all the rabbis who support the heter agree that first priority
is to support those places that grow food within the rules of shemitta
and otzar bet din. However, they would claim that other places in Israel
have priority over imported food in order to support Israeli
agriculture.  Thus, if the whole purpose of the heter mechira is to
support Israeli agriculture than it is counterproductive for each
consumer to say he will be machmir and only but imported food since the
price differential is small.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


From: David Lloyd-Jones <david.lloyd-jones@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:38:32 -0400
Subject: "Three Score and Ten"

"Three score and ten, or if by fortune..." is a common notion of a normal
lifespan, coming from Psalm 90, I believe.

In checking in Strong's Concordance, however, I find references to "three
score and ten" in 21 or 22 other places.

Is there a gematraic reason for this popularity of the number? Or any other



From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:50:22 +0200
Subject: Re: Tikkunei Sofrim

There is a midrash which clearly implies that hazal changed the text of
the Torah. The mdrash rabbah to Exodus (41:4) quotes the verse
"venavascha tarbeni" emphasizing the modesty or humility of G-d. The
example given is that G-d stood while visiting Abraham rather than the
natural order in which Abraham should have stood while G-d was visiting
him. The midrash then asks: "but it says that Abraham stood" and the
answer is that this is a correction of the sofrim. The implication is
that the text originally said, or should have said, that G-d was
standing before Abraham. The change was made to protect the honor of G-d
by eliminating the statement that he stood before Abraham. There are two
possible explanations for this. The "frum" explanation is that the
"corrections of the sofrim" were actually done by G-d in the original
edition of the Torah and are called "corrections of the sofrim" only
because "corrections" of this nature were commonly done by scribes. The
more reasonable explanation is that the scribes actually changed the
text of the Torah. The reason that this explanation is more reasonable,
especially in this context, is that the whole purpose of the passage is
to show the modesty or humility of G-d. It would be strange to think
that He changed the text to hide His humility. It is much more
reasonable that He wrote in the Torah that He stood before Abraham to
teach us a lesson in humility. However, the scribes thought it more
important to protect the honor of G-d and so they changed the text.

Joseph Tabory
Department of Talmud - Bar Ilan University
tel. (972) 3-5318593
email:  mailto:<taborj@...>

From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:23:45 +0300
Subject: Re: Tikkunei Sofrim

In vol 32 #40, Moshe J. Bernstein <mjbrnstn@...> wrote:

<<When my teacher, Professor Yeshayahu Maori, was beginning to do work on a
critical text (based on MSS) of Rashi al Hatorah, I asked him what the
textual status of the infamous "asher hafachuhu razal" was. He replied that
it occurs in well over half of the kitvei yad.>>

What is his source for this?

<<Furthermore, the Sefer Zikkaron (one of the earliest commentators on
Rashi; I believe that he was among the megoreshei sefarad) screams a lot
about these words in Rashi and at the end says, what can I do it occurs in
every text that I can find (or words to that effect; I don't have the
zikkaron in front of me). And he was writing about 1500.>>

Is this sefer in print?  Where can it be found?  Is it on the Bar Ilan
or other CDROM?  Is it in the Bar Ilan University library?  Better yet,
if anyone has a copy of the sefer, could he fax me the relevant text
referred to above?

Also, how many time in Rashi in all of Chumash, do those words appear
(with or without parentheses)?  Should there not be many more
occurrances of it than there are?  Did the censors miss a few out of

<<The general principle is, just because what a rishon writes disagrees
with what has become the 14th, 15th or 743rd iqqar haemunah doesn't mean
the rishon didn't write it. (or maybe even the 8th....)>>

OTOH, if so many other commentaries say that Rashi did not write it, it
could very well be that he indeed did not write it.

Kol Tuv,


End of Volume 32 Issue 44