Volume 33 Number 66
                 Produced: Wed Sep 27  6:12:32 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Definition and Kashrus of 'chassidishe shechita'
Eretz-Zayt Shemen
         [Mark Symons]
         [Sheldon Meth]
Men and wedding rings (4)
         [Shaya Goldmeier, Menashe Elyashiv, Chana/Heather Luntz, Bill
Non-Jews Under the Chuppah (3)
         [Mark Dratch, Anonymous, Perets Mett]
prayer with non-Jews
         [Steve Ganot]
Wedding rings?
         [Louise Miller]


From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:51:42 EDT
Subject: Definition and Kashrus of 'chassidishe shechita'

<< From: Rachel Smith <rachelms@...>
 Maybe this has been covered before, but I'm curious exactly how
 chassidishe shechita differs from regular (I've heard chassidishe uses a
 thinner knife (?)) and if any poskim (past or present) have declared it
 non-kosher (for Ashkenazim, for Sefardim - is chassidishe shechita
 similar to Beis Yosef glatt?)
 Thanks-R. >>

During the early years (esp.) of the hassidic movement, hassidic
slaughtering was a point of contention between hassidim and their
opponents. I believe that at first it mainly signified use of a
different, new type of knife, introduced by hassidim - which was
questioned by (only) some Rabbis - due to metallurgical quality issues
and their ramifications on halacha of shechita.  The new type of knife
was later accepted by all though, I believe - (see Elijah J. Schochets
book 'The Hassidic movement and the Gaon of Vilna' - p.43-44 [Jason
Aronson publishers]). Also, an economic angle was involved, as the
hassidic shechita diminished the largest source of revenue [from kehilla
kosher meat sales] flowing into the kehilla coffers, which naturally
aroused opposition of the kehilla. An article by Chone Shmeruk in the
journal 'Tzion' (1955 pps. 47-72) elaborates on the economic angle and
also states that there was a mystical angle involved as well - being
that hassidim were strong believers in reincarnation, they felt the
shochet needed to act with special care to assure that kabbalistic
rectifications on any soul incarnated (according to their kabbalistic
beliefs) in the animal being slaughtered, proceed in a desired manner.

 Nowadays it seems to mostly / sometimes be used to indicate
(supposedly) higher religious standards of shechita, e.g. by G-d fearing
shochtim with beards, etc. One can wonder though, objectively speaking,
if hassidic slaughtering is necessarily of superior kashrus....It is
difficult to fathom a position that a shochet who is hassidic is
automatically more trustworthy than an equally or more religious
non-hassidic one. Presumably each shechita should be judged by the
performance of it's shochtim, standards, policies, etc...not by their
membership or lack thereof, in a hassidic group.

One occasionally hears / sees food establishments advertising that they
use hassidic shechita exclusively. In addition to the fact that
different hassidic shechitas are presumably not identical, leaving what
is being advertised not entirely clear, one wonders what non-hassidim
(e.g.  Sepharadim, German Jews, Litvaks, etc.) think of what could be
seen by some as an implicit aspersion on their shechita.



From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:42:22 +1000
Subject: Re: Eretz-Zayt Shemen

My recent post in #63 started by saying "Further to my last post". 
For some reason that post never made it to the digest so I'd like to 
send it again. 

It was in relation to Russell Hendel's post in #55 which concluded:

"So quite simply Dt08-08 means "A Land of Olives, oil and honey."

If so, then you would have 8 species not 7. Also, what kind of oil is
being referred to?

I suggest that the hyphen shows that of all the 7 species, the land is
most strongly linked to the olive, it is this species that most
distinctively characterises the land, it is an "olive-land". There are
many similar parallels where you wouldn't expect a hyphen and this
consideration may be relevant in those cases also e.g. "Az Yashir-Moshe
Uvney Yisrael" ( with a hyphen between Yashir and Moshe). This may imply
that Moshe was so closely linked to the singing it was as though the
singing had so completely taken over Moshe that it became part of his
being so to speak.

Mark Symons
Psychiatrist and Baal Koreh
Melbourne, Australia


From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:29:03 -0400
Subject: Li

Asher Goldstein writes:

"Related question: My Rabbi-m'sader keddushin was very makpid
(scrupulous) on not intoning the "li" when reciting the "harei at...."
He said that only the husband-to-be should say that word (meaning, of
course, "to me"), as otherwise it would seem as though both of them were
asking to be betrothed.  Yet I do not recall any other m'sader keddushin
in the U.S. or here in Israel being so makpid on that point.  Any
comments, whether from the literature or otherwise?"

There's an old joke (based on a true story perhaps?) that goes like
this: A mesader keddushin was helping an ignorant chosson say the
critical prhase.  The dialog went as follows: Harei - harei; at - at;
mekudeshes - mekudeshes; WHO SURRENDERED TO GRANT AT APPOMATOX? - Lee!!



From: Shaya Goldmeier <JGoldmeier@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:04:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Men and wedding rings

To address Chaim Shapiros concern - there are people in this world who
will hit on you simply because they can.  The wedding ring turns away
more people than it attracts.  Also, on a lesser level, a wedding ring
can be compared to tzitzit.  the gmara mentions a story of the rabbi who
went to a prostitute and when he got undressed to his tzitzit (I guess
he wasn't chassidic and wore them inside) he stopped himself.  A ring -
while not a halacha to wear like tzitzit can be used by the man as a
geder for himself - nothing to do with what other people think.  also,
the issue isn't whether one should wear a ring - creating a new halacha
- but whether one can wear a ring.  This doesn't have to be only about
wedding rings - any ring e.g. class ring, sport trophy....  a wedding
ring is simply the most recognizable and easiest to defend from a
practical standpoint.

    Let's not overdo this issue and confuse halacha with a change in
 culture.  but, please, don't spout halacha w/o asking a rav.

shaya goldmeier

From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:56:57 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Men and wedding rings

When did males start wearing a wedding ring? I heard - that during WW II
wedding ring sales were low because many young men were in the USA army.
The jewlers then started advertising to married woman - send your drafted
husband a ring (& keep him clear of the natives..).  Any comments?
                          Shana Tova to all the MJ readers

From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/<Heather@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:47:52 +0100
Subject: Men and wedding rings

In message <20000924232827.21204.qmail@...>, Chaim
Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
>My wife has asked me to wear a ring to work.  As I work in the Non
>Jewish world, she wanted it to be very clear that I am happily married
>(and off limits).  Interestingly, however, I have recently read in
>several places that men who wear wedding rings are MORE often the target
>of unwarranted advances from single women then men who do not wear them!
>The logic behind this seemingly counter- intuitive argument is that
>women seeing men with a ring immediately know that some female has
>checked this guy out and found him OK.  Other women consider married men
>a potential conquest.  According to some articles, single men have
>started to wear wedding rings as a pickup device!

I too asked Robert to wear a wedding ring at work (ie in a non Jewish
context).  This was as a result of an experience with a flatmate of mine
many years ago.  One shabbas this flatmate and I were invited to an old
friend of mine for a meal.  I had lost touch with this friend, and in
the interim she had married, and I brought my flatmate along.  After we
left, my flatmate said to me something along the lines of "what did you
think of her husband?".  I said something along the lines of I didn't
really get to know him at all.  Whereapon my flatemate responded that
she thought he was "Sleazy".  I was astonished at this response, as I
didn't think we had any evidence at all for such a statement, and asked
on what basis she had said so.  It transpired it was because he was not
wearing a wedding ring.  I was extremely surprised by this assessment,
especially as wedding rings on men were not common in Jewish circles,
but this flatmate had grown up in a place in which there were a very
limited number of Jews, and even fewer frum Jews.

So I started asking around at work, to see whether in fact this was a
typical non Jewish response, and discovered that is seemed to be
surprisingly widely held (at least in my non representative sample).
That is, if a married man is not wearing a wedding ring, the implication
is that he is, or is open to, cheating on his wife.

Since I thought it important that Robert not be seen by those at work
who know he is married to be of loose morals, it seemed important to me
that he wear a wedding ring in such a context (I don't really care
whether he does in frum circles, as nobody will make such an assumption
there).  In reality though, he has gotten used to it, and tends to wear
it everywhere.



From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:25:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Men and wedding rings

On the subject of men wearing rings, the gemoro in the second perek of
Rosh HaShono discusses a signet ring and whether it can be worn or not,
or used or not.  (The answer seems to depend on whether it has a raised
or incised design).  But from this it would seem obvious that men wore
signet rings in the time of the gemoro.  Maybe signet rings were
different and women didn't wear them, but at least it suggests that
wearing decorative jewelry per se should not be prohibited.


From: Mark Dratch <MSDratch@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:08:15 EDT
Subject: Non-Jews Under the Chuppah

In mail-jewish Vol. 33 #63,  Jeff Fischer writes:
<< I asked my rabbi about the walking down to get my kallah.  First of all,
 it is because her parents are not Jewish and they can not walk her under
 the chupah. >>

Why not?  Is there a halachic basis for restricting non-Jews from standing 
under the chuppah?

Mark Dratch

From: Anonymous
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:24:46 -0400
Subject: Non-Jews Under the Chuppah

> From: Jeff Fischer <NJGabbai@...>
> I asked my rabbi about the walking down to get my kallah.  First of all,
> it is because her parents are not Jewish and they can not walk her under
> the chupah.

During the planning and the actual event of my wedding, which involved a
number of sheilahs to Rav David Feinstein and Rav Hershel Schachter, no
such issue was ever raised with respect to my parents (who are not
Jewish) participation at my chuppah.  And so my parents escorted me down
the aisle and stood with us under the chuppah, without complaint or
protest from either posek or from the other rabbonim gathered at the

Remember there is still an inyan of kibud av v'eim by a ger.  If you
have not already gotten married, I would ask your Rav to ask a posek the
question before forbidding you future in-laws from walking down the
aisle with your kallah.

From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:39:49 +0100
Subject: Re: Non-Jews Under the Chuppah

  Jeff Fischer <NJGabbai@...> wrote:
>I asked my rabbi about the walking down to get my kallah.  First of all,
>it is because her parents are not Jewish and they can not walk her under
>the chupah.  The 2nd and more important reason is because it says in the
>Gemara (not sure which masechta) that that the choson should come and
>walk the Kallah to the chupah.  I will try to find out from my rabbi
>where it says that.

I must have misunderstood Jeff's original posting.

I thought he was intending to proceed to the chupo with the kallo.  To
which I responded that I had never heard of this (or something to that

But it now seems he means that after he has arrived under the chuppo 
he wants to go out and bring the kallo in. This does accord with an 
old custom, as he says.

Perets Mett


From: Steve Ganot <Steve_Ganot@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:27:08 +0200
Subject: RE: prayer with non-Jews

About a month ago, I posed a number of questions regarding praying
together with or alongside (non-idol-worshipping) non-Jews, in and
outside of synagogues, in sites considered holy to non-Jews, and in
other settings (see

A few responses came in -- one correcting my previous understanding of
the Bahai and Druze religions and one about prayer in a
non-denominational prayer hall of the sort one might find in an airport
-- but none that directly answered my questions.

I posed the same list of questions to my posek and LOR, Rabbi Yitzhak
Lifshitz of Jerusalem, who responded briefly "I don't see any reason to
forbid non-Jews to pray with Jews, so all the rest is
redundent. Non-Jews are as respectable as Jews, and their praying is
accepted by God."

Rabbi Lifshitz noted verbally (and I am quoting with permission) that
"it is impossible that non-Jews should be prohibited from praying in
synagogues" since the laws regarding the sanctity of the synagogue are
derived from the laws of the Temple, and non-Jews were permitted in and
gave sacrifices in the Temple. While non-Jews were barred from certain
areas, this was due to tumah, and since we don't rule that Jews must be
tahor to enter a synagogue, we hold the same regarding
non-Jews. Finally, he noted that it is quite common for potential
converts to join synagogue prayers long before they have become Jews.

- Steve


From: Louise Miller <daniel@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:13:16 -0700
Subject: Wedding rings?

I was unaware that it was any sort of a halachic necessity to actually
wear the ring I was given under the chuppah.  After many years of
marriage, our rings have (ahem) shrunk in size, so I wear an anniversary
ring that would not have passed muster for kidushin.

That said, I totally agree with the poster who suggested that men and
women who interact with the non-Jewish world really ought to wear
wedding bands.  I had a beautiful Indian colleague who was constantly
being "hit on," and I needed to point out to her that American men
didn't recognize her wedding necklace and toe ring for what they
were. After she got herself a small gold ring this stopped.

I also agree with the poster who cringed a bit at the comment that "frum
Jews don't wear rings."  I would venture a guess that at least 50% of
all frum married people DO in fact wear rings.

Louise Miller
La Jolla (San Diego) CA


End of Volume 33 Issue 66