Volume 33 Number 51
                 Produced: Fri Sep  8  6:13:02 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Dishes not used for a Year (2)
         [Mike Gerver, Gershon Dubin]
Halachically Pregnant (2)
         [Leona Kroll, Menucha Chwat]
Parents Walking Down at Weddings (6)
         [Stuart Wise, Dov Teichman, Mike Gerver, Andy Levy-Stevenson,
Gershon Dubin, Reuven Miller]
Rabbit and Camels (3)
         [Sheldon Meth, Chaim Mateh, Kaye David Capt 86 AW/HC]
The Shabbos Kitchen
         [Sheldon Meth]
Tefilin & Wedding Rings
         [Paul Ginsburg]
Yichud Penuya:  D'Oraita?
         [Steven White]


From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:27:59 +0200 
Subject: Dishes not used for a Year

Sam Steingold asks, in v33n46,

> I have heard that the objects (e.g., glass, plastic or porcelain dishes)
> which cannot be koshered by usual means (clay pots have to be broken),
> become permissible when left alone without any use for 1 year.  Can
> someone provide a reference supporting or refuting this persistent
> rumor?

It's more than a rumor.  I have friends who became vegetarians many
years ago, and they got a psak [rabbinic decision] allowing them to
convert their fancy fleischig china to milchig by not using it for a
year. I don't know what the sources for the psak were.  But I'm pretty
sure that it only applied to converting from fleischig to milchig or
vice versa, and would not have worked to make trafe dishes
kosher. Needless to say, CYLOR before doing this yourself.

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel

From: Gershon Dubin <gdubin@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:44:44 -0400
Subject: Dishes not used for a Year

	It is the position of the Chacham Tzvi.  You need to CYLOR as to
when and if to make use of this heter.



From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Halachically Pregnant

In response to Aliza's questions- basically it means that, at least
according to the way I learned it, the laws of niddah are the same as
for a woman who is not pregnant until she is in her fourth month. Also,
the simple lashon- in the seforim i've seen- is that a woman is not
halachically pregnant until then.  In the book, B'Sha'ah Tova, there are
instructions (written next to the photos of babies in the womb)for what
to pray for at various stages of pregnancy.

Anyone else have more information on this?

Aliza- you should have good health, an easy labor, and G-d Willing, a
healthy baby! B'sha'ah tova!!!

From: Menucha Chwat <menu@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 15:15:04 +0200
Subject: Re: Halachically Pregnant

Yes, you can be halachically " a little pregnant".  The concept of
Niccar Ibura (or nicar havlad) applies to a 3 month pregnancy.  This has
many Halachic implications ranging from the obligation to fast minor
fasts (Mishna Brura 550,3) to laws applying to vestot and hargasha.  In
modern times, the question has arisen as to whether sophisticated
measures for early detection of pregnancy influence this concept.  A
good source for this topic is Rabbi Shimon Eider's "Halachos of Niddah"
volume 1 page 18.

menucha chwat


From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:34:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

> From: Ira Hartman <ihartman@...>
> I need a quick answer for this one.  Does anybody know the roots of the
> minhagim 1) each set of parents walking their child to the Hupa vs 2) of
> the two fathers walking the groom the and two mothers walking the Kala
> to the Hupa

Whatever the source, both customs are common, with chasidim mostly
following the fathers/groom model.  Some in the yeshiva world do the
same, but it seems a terrible injustice to deprive a parent and a child
from making this most important walk together.

It is always a wonderment to me why such painful customs arise in the
first place and then get entrenched.  I guess they don't want to mix the
sexes.  And yet among chasidim, the practice of the "mitzvah tanse," in
which a handkerchief is held by the bride and assorted male relatives
seems to shoot down that theory, or just raises the specter of some
weird hypocrisy.

From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:40:36 EDT
Subject: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

The source for both fathers walking down the chosson can be found in the
Ramo in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 391:3. I remember seeing a responsa in
the sefer Mishna Halachos (vol 8?) by Rabbi Menasheh Klein about the
importance of having men walk the groom and women the bride based on a
medrash in Breishis about Adams wedding with Chava. Also for the reason
that it is the established custom to have the fathers walk the groom and
mothers the bride (at least where Rabbi Klein comes from.)  I have never
seen a source for the custom of Parents walking their children down
(mother and father), although I know it was a legitimate custom in
  Dov Teichman

From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:46:22 +0200 
Subject: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

I don't know the origin of the minhagim, but I do have a mayseh. A
couple I know had this problem when they got married, about thirty years
ago.  She had come from an old Lubavitch family, which had minhag #2.
He grew up in Young Israel but became a Lubavitcher when he went to a
Lubavitch high school, and his family had minhag #1.  After arguing
about it for a while, they asked the Rebbe a shayla, and got an answer
that went something like this: "Minhagim are extremely
important. They're almost as important as mitzvot. But shalom bayit is a
mitzvah."  That was all he said, he didn't tell them which minhag they
should follow.

They are still happily married, with married children and grandchildren.
This should be a siman for Ira!  Mazal tov!

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel

From: Andy Levy-Stevenson <andy.levy-stevenson@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:38:00 -0500 
Subject: Re: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

No idea about minhagim, but here's our experience: I'm a ger, and my
wife's parents divorced many years ago and don't communicate well. So,
the fathers walked me down the aisle, and the mothers walked my wife.

To my parents, we explained that it made no sense for my in-laws to walk
my wife down the aisle together, since they'd done nothing else together
in her life for many years (each have good, loving, and supportive
relationships with my wife, but utterly independently of each other.)

To my wife's parents, we explained that since my parents weren't Jewish
there was a halachik issue (no idea if there is or isn't ... we didn't
ask, and my in-laws aren't observant so had no opinion on the issue).

Result: we each walked down with parents, with someone Jewish, and with
people who could talk to each other without snarling.

Please don't pasken by my experience, but I'd encourage you to find a
solution that maximises everybody's enjoyment of the simcha and
minimises ultimately petty disagreements (if that's the situation you're
in ...  maybe you guys all get along just great!)

Anyway, mazeltov!

Andy Levy-Stevenson

From: Gershon Dubin <gdubin@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:28:15 -0400
Subject: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

	Probably because you didn't foresee the situation far enough in
advance,  right?

	I cannot help you with the roots, although both customs have
ancient origins.

	I will just tell you what Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky said on the
issue.  He walked some of his children down with his wife, and some with
the "mechutan".  When asked what his minhag was, he responded that his
minhag was not to get into a fight over it and to allow those who felt
strongly about it to have it their way.

	Mazal Tov.


From: Reuven Miller <millerr@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 01:33:03 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Parents Walking Down at Weddings

see Aryeh Kaplan
Made in Heaven  book
page 152
who brings both minhagim.
Father and mother from Zohar1:49a,etz chaim shaar man u'maD 1 p.224,
shulchan haezer 7:4:1 ,levushei mordechai 4:22:2, keter shem tov
35,shaarim mezuyanim behalacha 174:9

2 fathers and 2 mothers in chassidic circles and in some yekkes
eduth leyisrael 8:7
chabad sefer haminhagim p 76
and od

reuven miller


From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:38:52 -0400 
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

I saw this once in a journal of the Association of Orthodox Jewish
Scientists.  I am recalling it from memory; all errors are mine:

The verses in question (Leviticus 11:4 - 6) are problematic.  Firstly,
we don't really know what the shaffan and the arneves are.  The popular
translations of rabbit and hare are questionable, since they don't have
hooves, per se, so "mafris parsa" is irrelevant (e.g., sheratzim aren't
included either - and, BTW, I don't think hippos have split hooves: they
have toes like elephants).  Secondly, the Torah uses present tense
(mafris) for the gammal, future tense (yafris) for the shaffan, and past
tense (hifrisah) for the arneves.

A possible solution proposed in the AOJS article is that these three
animals refer to the same species: the camelids.  The gammal refers to
the dromedary (one humped) camel, which is indigenous to Africa and the
Middle East.  The Jews in the time of the Torah were used to these
camels, and so the gammal is listed in present tense.  The arneves is
the bactrian (two-humped) camel, which originated in Baktria,
Afghanistan, and was likely prevalent in Iran/Iraq, i.e., Ur Kasdin,
when Avraham Avinu was born.  Therefore, it is listed in past tense,
since they are remembered from our origins.

There is a third member of the camel family - the llama (and other South
American camelids like the alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco), which the Jews
would not see for another 2.5 millennia when the New World was
discovered, but which G-d knew existed.  This is the shaffan, and that
is why it is mentioned in the future tense.

From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:12:43 +0200
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

In vol 33#45, Eliezer Shemtov <shemtov@...> wrote:

<<I have researched the matter a bit and have found that neither the camel
nor the rabbit ruminate.  Does anyone have any answer to this apparent

I'm not so sure about the camel.  If I remember correctly, I've seen
camels (here in Israel) bring up their cud from their stomachs and then
proceed to chew it.  It looks pretty disgusting actually <G>.

Regarding rabbit/hare, Rav S.R.Hirsch says that the english for shafan
and arnevet cannot be rabbit/hare since these do not chew their cud.

I haven't found any sources that discuss the Hallachic technical
definition of "maaleh geira".  We translate it as "chewing the cud".
Perhaps it is sufficient for it to _appear_ to chew its cud.  IOW, if
the animal eats and chews in a fashion that appears to be chewing its
cud, even if scientifically it isn't, this may still be considered
maaleh geira.  Do rabbits/hares _appear_ to chew their cud?

Kol Tuv,

From: Kaye David Capt 86 AW/HC <David.Kaye@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:32:55 +0200 
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

   What's the answer to the question posed?

    HaGaon HaRav Moshe Dovid Tendler once noted that he believes that
the shafan is a llama and arneves is a vicuna. They belong to the
camelidae, or the class of the small camels.

   He noted that microbiology offers another possible answer.

   Ruminants are animals that have a special digestive organ, the rumen,
which serves as a huge microbial culture vessel. The rumen is a unique
ecosystem in which anaerobic microorganisms play the principle role in
the digestion of insoluble feed materials such as cellulose and
starch. The fermentative bacteria of the rumen produce volatile fatty
acids which then serve as the principle energy source of the ruminant
animal. In addition to their role in the digestive process, the rumen
microorganisms synthesize vitamins and amino acids used by the
ruminant. A rabbit, in fact, does chew its cud. A cow ferments the food
in the rumen, then regurgitates and digests it. The rabbit defecates in
one corner of its cage and comes back at night to eat the fermented
remains. It thus does "chew its cud" or eats its food once again! Let me
explain: Rabbits, like horses are herbivorous mammals, but they are not
ruminants. Instead they have only one stomach and employ an organ called
the cecum, a small digestive organ located posterior to the large
intestine (just before the anus), as their cellulolytic fermentation
vessel. The cecum contains a cellulolytic microflora and digestion of
cellulose occurs here. Nutritionally, ruminants have an advantage over
horses and rabbits in that the cellulolytic microflora of the ruminant
eventually passes through a true (acidic) stomach and can serve as a
protein source for the animal. In horses and rabbits, the cellulolytic
microflora is passed out of the animal in the feces. To recover some of
this lost protein, rabbits frequently practice coprophagy (eating of the


From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:46:41 -0400 
Subject: The Shabbos Kitchen

In v33 n47, Chaim Mateh writes:
<<<<"The Shabbos Kitchen," p. 139, note 4 elaborates on the Dagul
Me'rivavah's reasoning: >>

Who is the author of the above?  Does he merely explain the DM's
reasoning or does he also pasken that one can cut the letters?>>

"The Shabbos Kitchen" is by S. Cohen.  It was published in 1991 by
Mesorah Publications Ltd.(ISBN: 0899068820).  In the English text, he
"paskens" like the Mishnah Berurah, but in the (Hebrew) note, he cites
the Dagul Me'rivavah.  The reasoning is given in the Sha'arei Teshuvah,
as I explained.  I don't remember it Cohen has it in his book (I don't
have the book in front of me right now).


From: Paul Ginsburg <GinsburgP@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:43:00 -0400 
Subject: Tefilin & Wedding Rings

When putting on the Tefilin shel Yad, does Halachah require one to take
off their wedding ring/band?  (I recognize that most frum Jews don't
wear wedding rings).

Thank you in advance for your help.

Paul Ginsburg


From: Steven White <StevenJ81@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:14:29 EDT
Subject: Yichud Penuya:  D'Oraita?

In 33:33, Dovid Orvatz stated that "Yichud penuya nidda" is prohibited
d'oraita.  What mitzvat lo ta'ase (mitzva of "you shall not" type) is
being violated here?

Steven White


End of Volume 33 Issue 51