Volume 33 Number 60
Produced: Sun Sep 17 8:28:45 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Dishes not used for a Year
[Emmanuel Ifrah]
Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings (3)
[Leah S. Gordon, Michael Poppers, Robert Sherer]
Men's Wedding Ring
[Chaim Mateh]
Removing wedding ring for washing and tefillin
[Joshua Hosseinof]
Shapes of letters
[Yossie Abramson]
Shofar -- Source for Shofar of Ayil as a Hidur (2)
[Chaim G Steinmetz, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Tefilin & Wedding Rings
[Michael Appel]
Wedding customs
[Perets Mett]
Wedding ring and washing
[Michael Poppers]
Wedding rings (2)
[Perets Mett, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Emmanuel Ifrah <eifrah@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:57:01 +0200
Subject: Dishes not used for a Year
In v33n54, Michael Hoffman answered the following to re: dishes not used
for a year:
>>The Chacham Tzvi holds that if food was cooked in chometz keilim that
>>have not been used for 12 months (lunar) that this food is permissible
>>on Pesach. Several poskim hold like the Chacham Tzvi, but many oppose
>>this view, even if what was cooked was not a "dovor chorif", especially
>>according to the Rama who holds that we forbid "nosen taam lif'gam" on
>>Pesach, even bediavad. (See Pri Megadim YD 103 Sifsei Daas 17, who is
>>machmir even with an issur derabanan")
The real origin of the rule of 12 months to "regular" issur comes from
the halachot of "Keley ha-Yayin" (ustensils that were used with
forbidden wine, v. SA, YD 135:16). For these ustensils, the rule of 24
hours does not apply (the taste of wine absorbed by an ustensil is not
conisedered as "pagum" after 24 hours of not having been used). This is
were the Chacham Tzvi extended his Pessach din from (for a complete
explanation, v. Pitchey Teshuva, #3 on YD 122:2).
A friend of mine witnessed that within some chasidic communities, even
though people do not eat "gebrocht" (matza that came in contact with a
liquid, lest it becomes hametz)during the first days of Pessach, they do
so during the second holiday and then rely on the heter of 12 months to
use their Pessach ustensils again during the next Pessach. The only
problem is that the halacha is based on 12 lunar months as pointed out
by Michael Hoffman (v. Pitchey Teshuva #3 on YD 135:16). Obviously,
between the two last days of Pessach in year N and the first days of
Pessach in year N+1, there is less than 12 full lunar months (except if
year N+1 is "me'uberet"). Does any one have an answer to this problem or
a halachic authority authorizing this practice?
Thank you,
Emmanuel Ifrah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <lsgordon@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:28:44 -0700
Subject: Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings
Am I the only one who finds it jarring to read, "frum Jews don't wear
wedding rings" as a female frum Jew who does??
By the way, both my father and my husband wear wedding rings as well.
And in fact, I know more frum women who don't (due to swelling from
pregnancy/etc. or lots of hard manual labor on a regular basis) than
frum men who don't.
I think it is a sign of respect for the marriage for a person to wear a
token of such all the time. And it does not presuppose having a "two
ring" ceremony at the chuppah either, which none of my close circle has
done.
--Leah S. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:04:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings
In M-J V33#57, GJGevaryahu wrote:
> The issue of men wearing wedding ring has a couple of facets: 1. Lo
yilbash gever simlat Isha (halachic issue), and 2. vanity, and maybe 3.
minhag. <
For a different perspective (including that of R'Moshe Feinstein z'tz'l')
on the subject, see M-J postings in ancient issue V17#83, specifically
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v17/mj_v17i83.html#CXH and
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v17/mj_v17i83.html#CXL.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Sherer <ERSherer@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:38:41 EDT
Subject: Re: Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings
Many years ago, the rabbi of the shul I once attended told me a
story of a chasan/kallah who wanted a then-popular "double ring"
ceremony. The rabbi explained to the chassan, a young lawyer, that the
wedding was, in effect, a contractual transaction in which the ring is
given to the bride in consideration of her becoming the chassan's
wife. Viewed in this light, the "double ring ceremony" becomes nothing
more than an even exchange of two pieces of jewelry. The lawyer
understood this perfectly and accepted the rabbi's position. I suppose
if a wife wanted to give her husband a present of a ring, or he wanted
to buy one for himself, there is no reason she couldn't or he
couldn't. Maybe the reason frum Jews don't wear wedding rings is a
matter of mareis ayin, it should not look as though he went through a
"double-ring" ceremony.
Robert Sherer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:00:11 +0200
Subject: Men's Wedding Ring
In vol 33#54, Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...> wrote:
<<I wear a wedding ring, and all my frum married male contemporaries wear
wedding rings (I got married 25 years ago). True, frum Jews don't have
double ring ceremonies under the chuppah, but men not wearing wedding rings
at all? Is this some new chumrah that the younger generation has taken up,
which I missed?>>
I also got married 25 years ago and at that time, and most of the time
since, I had never heard of frum Jewish men wearing wedding rings. When
and how did this custom begin? Is it based on any Jewish source?
[See Michael Poppers reference to David Steinberg's posting from 1995
which references a teshuva from R' Moshe that there is no issue of
Bechukosayhem - emulating gentile practice. Mod.]
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <hosseino@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Removing wedding ring for washing and tefillin
With regards to washing see the Mishnah Berurah 161:19 who writes "The
achronim conclude that it is only a woman, since she would remove her
ring for doing work such as kneading dough [who must remove their rings
for washing], but men who do not remove their rings when doing work
since men do not knead dough, men do not need to remove the ring for
washing even if the ring is not loose, however if the ring has a
precious stone in it then even a man would remove it for washing so that
the stone would not get dirty from washing, so in such a case one should
remove it because it might be a separation (chatzitah)". Similar
comments are also found in Yalkut Yosef vol. 3.
As far as Tefillin goes see the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 27:4 which
says "No object should separate between the Tefillin and the person's
skin, neither for the 'Shel Yad' nor for the 'Shel Rosh. [the Rama
clarifies:] But only for the Tefilin [meaning the boxes], but for the
straps one need not worry." And there is a reference to a Shu"t of the
Rashba Vol. 1:827
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yossie Abramson <yossie@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:03:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Shapes of letters
Just a quick note regarding the kabbalistic aspect of shapes. The new
Artscroll siddurim, contain round nekudos, (vowel signs). The old
siddurim had square ones, trying to be artsy I guess. I was told by a
sefarim dealer that the reason for the change is that the nekudos are
supposed to be round. Interesting.
Yossie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:16:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Shofar -- Source for Shofar of Ayil as a Hidur
> From: Aaronson, Jeffrey B. <JAaronson@...>
> Can anybody provide a source that says that it is preferable to use a
> Shofar from an Ayil for at least some kolot (yes I am aware of the
> importance of the ayil in the akedia and the importance of the akedia
> to Rosh Ha Shanna--but I am looking to see if there is credible source
> for the request) or if this is shtuss ?
See Shulchan Aruch OH 586:1 that a "ayil" is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar
(see SA Horav and MIshna Brura there).
Chaim G. Steinmetz
<cgsteinmetz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:19:49 EDT
Subject: Shofar -- Source for Shofar of Ayil as a Hidur
Jeffrey B. Aaronson (MJ v33n56) asks for sources for Shofar of Ayil as a
Hidur
The book _Zichron Teruah_ by Isaac Shailat (Greenspan) (Jerusalem 1975)
is the most authoritative and comprehensive (712 pages) source for
shofar and tekiah, halachot, minhagim and mekorot.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Appel <mjappel@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:54:25 -0700
Subject: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
I wrap the retzuah around my ring finger only once at its base. The
other wrappings are around my middle finger. I have found that if I move
my wedding ring up just a bit, it is no longer a physical interposition
between the retzuah and my ring finger. This should be alright, unless
there is a requirement which I am not aware of, that the black of the
straps on the ring finger must touch the middle and ring finger. Is
there such a requirement?
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:42:21 +0100
Subject: Wedding customs
I was interested to read:
>and then I will walk her under the Chupah and she will go around by herself.
I have not heard of a custom for the choson to take the kallo under the
chupo.
The only custom I have ever seen is for the choson to go (be taken)
under the chupo first, so that he is already there when the kallo
arrives.
After the chupo the custom (Ashkenazi custom, at least) is for the
choson to walk the kallo to the Yichud.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Wedding ring and washing
In M-J V33#57, JShaffer wrote:
> Can anyone provide any further authority on not taking off a
wedding ring to wash.... I had been following the practice of taking my
ring off to wash netilat yadayim, until I stopped when I realized that the
only time I ever take off my ring was for that purpose (i.e. I wouldn't
take my ring off to knead bread if I ever kneaded bread and I don't take it
off to work on my car, etc.). <
Sounds like you're referencing the Mishna B'rurah ("MB") 19 (or the
Magen Avraham 11) on Shulchan Aruch ("SA") Orach Chaim ("OC") 161:4.
Those who hold by the p'sakim (halachic decisions) of the Aruch
HaShulchan ("AH") would insist that you should take your ring off while
washing (see AH 161:6), but, after [textually] learning the relevant
sugyos (discussions) on mikvah and hand-washing in depth [from Mikvaos
9:3 to SA Yoreh Deah 198 and OC 161:2] and thus b'm'chilas k'vodas (with
all due respect to the) AH, his way of understanding the extent to which
[or perhaps more accurately, the reasoning behind which] a ring may be a
chatzitzah (interposition) re hand-washing is not the only way. Re the
MB, his language of "ain darco lhakpid l'hasir b'sha'as m'lachah" is in
clear distinction to the language of the AH (don't have the saifer in
front of me, so I'm paraphrasing from memory), which indicates that a
ring, even sans a [semi-]precious-stone mounting, is per se a chatzitzah
if you occasionally remove it.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
P.S. Since I noted that my wife wanted to buy me a wedding ring, let me
also note that, despite my believing, based on learning the
above-mentioned sugyos, that I needn't take that ring off when
performing n'tilas yodayim, I do take it off at her request. As the
Chofetz Chayim z'tz'l' (author of MB) is quoted as saying, "Saichel
(roughly translated, 'Application of logic based on knowledge&prior
experiences/common sense') is the 5th section of SA."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:34:07 +0100
Subject: Re: Wedding rings
Rachel Swirsky wrote:
> Frum women who are married are easy to spot. For the most
>part, we do not get hit on at the grocery store and shadchanim leave us
>alone. A hat on a woman is a sure sign. Friends of my husband who were
>long married were approached by shadchanim.
If you ask me, that just means the shadchon is not very bright. He
could go to shul and see who is wearing a talis! [Unless your husband is
a Sphardi, or Yeke - bu the isn't, is he?]
Mike Gerver said:
> True, frum Jews don't have double ring ceremonies under the chuppah,
>but men not wearing wedding rings at all? Is this some new chumrah that
>the younger generation has taken up, which I missed?
Why does following the custom of our forebears count as a "new chumrah"?
If you want wear a ring, fine. But why criticize who can survive happily
without one. My father managed without a ring, as did his father and
grandfather. None of my married sons wears a ring, and I doubt that my
unmarried ones will wear one when they marry in due course.
And, by the way, wear a ring if you wish but do not pretend that it is a
wedding ring.
A married woman does not NEED to wear her wedding ring at all times (or
at all, even). But it IS customary for her to do so because it is the
object through which she became wedded to her husband.
A man may wear a ring, but it is sheer pretence to call it a wedding
ring.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 07:56:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Wedding rings
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Perets Mett wrote:
> And, by the way, wear a ring if you wish but do not pretend that it
> is a wedding ring.
> A married woman does not NEED to wear her wedding ring at all times
> (or at all, even). But it IS customary for her to do so because it is
> the object through which she became wedded to her husband.
> A man may wear a ring, but it is sheer pretence to call it a wedding ring.
I do not understand this point at all. I wear a ring on my hand, and the
purpose of that ring is to indicate that I am married. Therefore, by
definition, at least to me, I am wearing a wedding ring. My wife also
wears a ring on her hand, for the same purpose. It is true that for her,
this ring is also "value of money" item that was used to create
Kiddushin between us, so she actually wears her Kiddushin ring as a
wedding ring, while I wear simply a ring unassociated with the Kidushin
process. Neither of these rings are associated with the Nesuin
process. So I maintain that we both wear wedding rings, and have every
right to call them by that term.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 60
