Volume 33 Number 64
                 Produced: Tue Sep 26  5:07:45 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Dishes not used for a Year (2)
         [Mike Gerver, Perets Mett]
Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings
         [Stuart Wise]
Science in Gemara (was: Hebrew & Roman Calendars)
         [Mike Gerver]
Shmitta year golf
         [Tod Littner]
Talisim as a sign of marriage (was wedding rings)
         [Rachel Swirsky]
         [Leona Kroll]
Wearing Rings
         [Shaya Goldmeier]
Wedding customs
         [Danny Skaist]
Wedding rings
         [Perets Mett]
Wedding Rings
         [Anthony S Fiorino]


From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:26:38 +0200
Subject: Dishes not used for a Year

Emmanuel Ifrah, in v33n60, says

> 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. 

My understanding is that the minhag is only to eat gebrochts on the
eighth day of Pesach, i.e. on the second day of yom acharon shel Pesach,
observed only in chutz la-aretz.  Since the prohibition of eating
chometz on this day is only rabbinic, the 1/60 rule would apply to any
chometz that was unintentionally created by preparing gebrochts, as is
true in general for chometz not during Pesach.  So there wouldn't really
be any problem with using the dishes for the following Pesach.  I
suppose the fact that the dishes are sitting unused for almost 12 months
is just one more reason to be lenient, but it's not really needed
anyway, so the fact that it is not quite a full 12 months wouldn't

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel

From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:48:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Dishes not used for a Year

  Emmanuel Ifrah <eifrah@...>:

>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?

There are two customs involved here.

The most widespread chasidish custom is to waive the chumro of gebrokts
on the 8th day of Pesach and not worry about the effect on the keilim
for next year.

This is based on the ruling of the R'mo OC 436:8 that dried fruits,
forbidden on Pesach as a chumro, may be (cooked and) eaten on the 8th
day of Pesach. (The RMO says "the last yomtov of Pesach" but this is
interpreted as referring to the 8th day only) This was indeed the custom
in many communities in Eastern Europe.

The problem with the keilim is not mentioned. Since the whole issur is a
chumro, it was not considered to aser the keilim - at least those not in
use until next year.

In a like manner, the custom of not eating gebrokts incorporates the
leniency of using the keilim on the 8th day and then considering them to
be OK the following year.

A stricter version of the custom is to forbid the use of keilim for
gebrokts even on the 8th day.

According to this version of the custom, if the following year is a leap
year, so that more than twelve months will elapse before the beginning
of the next Pesach, the keilim may be used for gebrokts by relying on
the 12-month leniency of the Chacham Tsvi.

Perets Mett


From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:40:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Frum Jews don't wear wedding rings

> 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

I agree. That is why I wanted to wear a wedding ring, but out of respect
for my wife I don't.  Before we were married, I mentioned to my wife
that I was so thrilled to finally get married that I wanted everyone to
know it.  But my wife's family would have frowned on this.  We
compromised and I would wear the ring only to work.  So it meant putting
on and taking it off, but it was fine.

One time several months after we married, I had to change a tire after
traveling home from work, and the ring must have fallen out of my
pocket. I was upset and my wife saw I was, and though she didn't agree
with my wearing the ring she helped me comb the area where I was parked.

We never found it and I never replaced it out of respect for my wife's
original wishes. I guess it was never meant to be.

Oddly enough, after my father passed away several years ago, I was
cleaning out his house and I most unexpectedly found something I had
thought was lost: my deceased mother's wedding band.  It fit me
perfectly and thought I would continue to wear it.  But I decided
against it; I didn't want to chance losing it.


From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:54:04 +0200
Subject: Science in Gemara (was: Hebrew & Roman Calendars)

Eli Linas, in v33n58, provides a very useful summary of the differing
opinions of the Rosh and R. Avraham ben HaRambam, on whether the science
in the gemara is necessarily correct.  But then he goes on to say

> There, Rav Shlomo Zalman says explicitly that the
> Rosh's de'ah is the ikker one. Rav Shlomo Zalman, of course, was recognized
> as one of the greatest contemporary poskim. If someone of his stature
> states his opinion on this, it seems to me that that is tantamount to
> saying that yes, the gemara itself does make this claim [that all science
> in the gemara is accurate]. 

But if R. Avraham ben HaRambam's opinion was shared by the Rambam (which
seems likely to me, does anyone have reason to think differently?), who
was, to put it mildly, also a great posek in his time, then by the same
reasoning one could say that this is tantamount to saying the gemara
itself does not make this claim. It's not possible for both statements
to be true, so neither can be true.  The fact that a later posek, no
matter how great, interprets the gemara in a certain way, is not the
same as saying that the gemara says it that way.  Similarly, a statement
in the gemara is not the same as a statement in the mishnah, and a
statement in the mishnah is not the same as a statement in the Torah.

If Eli just meant that, in his opinion, one should go along with what R.
Shlomo Zalman's said on this matter, because he was such a great posek,
fine. But that does not answer Barak Greenfield's original question,
which was asking what the gemara itself claimed.

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel


From: Tod Littner <littner@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:34:59 +0200
Subject: Shmitta year golf

Having just returned from a golf vacation in the States, a terrible
thought occurred to me - how do I replace my golf divots when I play golf
in Israel during shmitta year?  If you are not a golfer you may think
this is frivolous, but if you are you will realize that this is a very
serious question.  All golf rules require golfers to replace their divots
- a divot being the piece of fairway that is dug up from behind the ball
when it is hit with an iron from the fairway.  The better courses also
have containers of grass seed on the golf carts, so in addition to
patting the piece of grass back into the fairway so that it will take
root again, you can also plant seed around it so that the fairway stays
smooth and the next player's ball doesn't roll into the hole you have
created.  I suspect that neither of the two Israeli golf courses - in
Caeserea and in Ga'ash - have been sold as part of the shmitta year sale
of land (or maybe they have?  I am not aware that they are under rabbinic
supervision.  Who would know?).  How do we play golf this coming year and
follow both golf rules and shmitta rules?


From: Rachel Swirsky <yu211366@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:49:53 -0700
Subject: Talisim as a sign of marriage (was wedding rings)

> 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?]

For the record, there are people who are set up not through the shule! 
Do you where a talis at Mincha?  How about Friday night?



From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Tefillin

There is a community which does hold by wearing tefillin all day, even
in this generation. They have a yeshiva and a gan in the Old City of
Jerusalem. I believe most of them are descendants of the students sent
there by the Vilna Gaon. Whenever I'm in the Old City, I see a few of
them walking about with their tefillin on, and invariably I run into a
few teenagers buying candy and Bamba at the markolet- still wearing


From: Shaya Goldmeier <JGoldmeier@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:37:38 EDT
Subject: Re: Wearing Rings

Why is it that we get someone who posts as halacha the issur of lo
yilbash w/o obviously knowing the halacha?  Lo yilbash says a man cannot
wear womens clothes in order to pass as a woman.  That's it!  A mans
ring is not beged isha, just as pants that can be made tznua - possible
and mutar so don't start on this issue - are not beged ish.  The frum
community stopped wearing rings when the poor jews from Europe couldn't
aford them.  Even as early as this last century there are pics and
stories of frum wealthy jews with rings used for stamping in wax.  Then
the Yeshiva world didn't have to have men mark themselves as married to
eliminate the working world from "hitting on them".  I am a frum jew (I
think I am at least) and I wear a ring with full permission (bad term
because not assur) of my Rav because a)lo yilbash was never an issur b)
It was a safe and obvious way to show I'm taken and it does keep away
alot of potential problems.

Shaya Goldmeier


From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:43:12 +0200
Subject: RE: Wedding customs

<<Perets Mett
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.>>

None of my great-grandfathers wore a tie. Both of my grandfathers did
(even though one of them got a lot of flak over it).  So the custom of
my forbears is to change along with the times.  I guess (if I wand to be
machmir) I must now go out and get a wedding ring.



From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:03:22 +0100
Subject: Wedding rings

Avi wrote:

>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.

Of course you have every **right** to call it a "wedding" ring if you
must. But, as I said, in my original posting, it is a pretence to do
so. You could also call it a snark, or a tovey, and have every right to
do so.

My wife wears a "wedding" ring. She acquired at our wedding ceremony (=
under the chupo).  You wish to wear a ring to indicate that you are
married so call it a marriage ring, or a wedded ring. A wedding is a
ceremony by which a man and woman marry. Since the ring is a vital part
of the ceremony, it is called a wedding ring. Yes, it should be called a
Kidushin ring amongst Jews, but we speak English and call it a wedding

I do not see the relevance of nisuin to this discussion. A woman is
married (=eishes ish) from the instant that she accepts the kidushin
ring. It makes sense to call the ring that creates this matrimonial
state, and no other, a "wedding" ring.

Perets Mett

From: Anthony S Fiorino <fiorino_anthony@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:16:46 -0400
Subject: Wedding Rings

> 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.

I find this explanation for why women and not men wear wedding rings to
be unsatisfying because it implies that there is some halachic
significance to the ring that drives the custom of wearing it (and, by
implication, that men wearing wedding rings is somehow different because
there is no halachic issue driving it).  There is no halachic
significance to the ring other than the fact that it was used to execute
the transaction.  By this poster's reasoning, I should have kept the pen
I used to make a kinyan over my ketubah? I suppose I would have if there
was some prevailing social custom to do so (as there is, for instance, a
prevailing social custom for women to wear wedding rings).

Some Sephardim do not use a ring but use a coin to execute the wedding
transaction, which raises the interesting historical issue of when rings
replaced the use of other objects (such as coins) in Ashkenazi weddings
and what was the force that drove such a change.  I'll bet it had
something to do with wedding practices of the local surrounding
communities in which Jews lived.

Eitan Fiorino


End of Volume 33 Issue 64