Volume 44 Number 56
Produced: Tue Aug 31 6:11:22 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Following the minhagim of the husband
[Eli Turkel]
Halachic parasitism
[Steven White]
Have you learned a mishnah recently?
[Dovi Jacobs]
Parve, Dairy and Fleishig
[Binyomin Segal]
Vegetarianism
[Joseph Tabory]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:21:33 +0300
Subject: Following the minhagim of the husband
Chana has given a long and clear explanation of the issues of a married
woman keeping her husbands\'s customs. Nevertheless, I feel she is
pushing RMF and ROY to far in a woman changing her customs.
> >With his agreement she may be allowed some leeway in these matters so
> >long as it does not lead to conflict between them. For example he may
> >agree that she continue to use for her private davenning the nusach
> >hatephillah to which she is accustomed.
>
> I am not sure of Martin's source for this, because based on the
> underlying position of both Rav Moshe and Rav Ovadiah, I am not sure how
> they would get to this conclusion.
Yavetz has a teshuva about women saying she-hechitanu on lighting
candles on yomtov. He personally is against it and she should listen to
the beracha during kiddush. He then concludes that his own wife does
make a beracha and he does not stop her because of shalom bayit. It is
obvious that his wife followed the customs of her own mother and that
was prefectly acceptable. In most homes in Eastern Europe the woman was
in charge of the kitchen and followed her mother's customs. No one
insisted that she really ask her mother-in-law about every detail. Only
large scale problems like kitniyot did the husband's custom prevail or
whenever the husband insisted. For most other matters it was more
minhag than din.
Even in the past women married between German and Litvishe and Chassidic
families and I am sure all the women continued praying in their old
way. This was especially true since most women never went to shul
outside of Yamim Noraim and an occasional yomtov. I have little doubt
that in customs related to Mikvah that all women learned from their
mothers and did not ask the husband or mother-in-law for their local
customs.
Even in terms of moving to a new community I am sure that most people
kept their old customs for private matters. Rosh states clearly that
when he moved to Spain from Germany that he kept most ashkenazi customs
because he felt that there were better than the local Spanish customs.
Rav Kook states that an ashkenazi moving to Israel should continue to
daven in the ashkenazi accent of his ancestors.
Hence, in regard to private minhagim I think people moving to a new
community kept their old customs. As such this would certainly be true
of women marrying. As I indicated this is not a new problem.
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steven White)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 06:13:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Halachic parasitism
As I am beginning to see things come together here, I am inclined to
agree with Chana Luntz and Binyomin that the situation is not
necessarily one of "parasitism." But try as I do "ladon l'chol adam
l'kaf z'chut" (give everyone the benefit of the doubt), I must come to
the conclusion that frequently it _is_ "parasitism" in reality, as Meir
Shinnar argues. And what leads me to this conclusion is the ignored
case of the tallis bag dropped into the stroller.
In arguing against the idea that the situation in this thread is
"halachic parasitism" (sic), Binyomin Segal writes in MJ 44:32:
>>But accepting that the psak allows carrying does NOT close the door on
the discussion for what an individual should do. [...] And a person has
the right, perhaps even an obligaton, to be true to his sense of the
sources.<
Wearing a tallis home is not a significant tircha (difficulty) for the
vast majority of men, so if a man is really being "true to his sense of
the sources," he should unquestionably start out by wearing his tallis
home. If his wife (who uses the eruv) offers to carry it home for him,
he can say yes, of course, and the tallis (without a bag) might be in
the stroller. But a tallis in a bag in a stroller demands some kind of a
priori decision that someone will carry the tallis (or at least the
bag).
I would argue that even if the wife bought her husband the tallis, there
is no significant benefit to _her_ in carrying the tallis. Unlike in
the case of babies and strollers, where she wants to go to shul, or at
least to get out of the house, in the case of tallis there is no reason
for her to carry it. The only explanations are that (a) she offers to
help out of kindness, or (b) he asks her to help.
In my view, someone who is being "true to his sense of the sources" in
not using an eruv is being inconsistent in case (b). Additionally, he
ought not rely on (a), absent some unexpected outside tircha (weather,
etc.). And that is why I believe that the situation described here is
so often "parasitic" in reality, even though in theory it need not be.
Steven White
Highland Park, NJ
<StevenJ81@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Have you learned a mishnah recently?
Have you learned a mishnah recently? Do you think you could translate
it fairly easily, and maybe even add a couple of sentences to explain
it?
If so, then please consider actually typing that translation (it
shouldn't take too long for one mishnah) and donating it to "The Open
Mishnah Project" at <wikisource.org>. (WikiSource is a less-known
sister project of the more famous <wikipedia.org>. It is for
source-texts of all kinds in all languages.)
If you donate the translation of a mishnah, it will be available to the
public forever, and you will be contributing towards building the first
open-source English translation/commentary of the Mishnah. ("Open
source" means that it is not restricted by copyright laws. Anyone can
copy it, use it, and modify it for any purpose.)
How is it done? It's very easy and anyone can do it in three basic
steps:
1. Go to the "Mishnah" page at wikisource.org. (Just type "mishnah" in
the navigation bar and click "Go".)
2. Adding a new link to the mishnah you want to translate. You do this
by editing the "Mishnah" page. (Simply click the tab that says "Edit
this page." You will already find links there to at least two sample
mishnayos that I wrote, so just add yours to the list. For example, if
you want to translate the first mishnah in tractate Rosh Hashanah, then
just add: [[Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:1]]. The double square brackets are
the code for a wiki-link. Then "save" the page with the new link that
you added.)
3. Upload your new translation/commentary for the mishnah you've
chosen. (Click on the new link you have added - it will appear in red
because it is still empty - and then edit the new page by typing or
pasting your translation/commentary for that mishnah. When you are done
click the "save" button on the bottom, just like you did for the
"Mishnah" page.)
If about a dozen people were to occasionally contribute the translation
of a single mishnah - say once a week - that could get the ball rolling
towards ultimately translating the entire Shas. This could be a project
for day school students, or anyone who learns mishnayos regularly (or
even occasionally).
This is a project that is never finished - it can always be added to and
improved. If you make a mistake in your translation, don't worry,
because you or someone else can always fix it. If people disagree about
how to write up the translation, they can always discuss it and come to
a resolution on the "Talk" page for that mishnah. Which means that it
can even become a sort of learning community.
I myself contributed the E nglish translations and commentaries to the
first two sample mishnayos: Berakhot 1:4 and Peah 1:1. I don't plan to
add much more myself in English because I am working on the Hebrew
version (found at <he.wikisource.org>, which is the Hebrew-domain for
WikiSource). To see the Hebrew project, go to the Hebrew wikisource and
type in "Mishnah Petuchah" (in Hebrew). Besides an index for the whole
Shas, there are already basic texts there including formatted-punctuated
mishnah, Rambam's version, and Bartenura on most of Berachos and the
first chapter of Peah. The typing and editing are done manually.
If you find something you don't like in my two sample translations don't
complain, just fix it yourself!
The Hebrew and English versions of each and every mishnah can be linked
(look at the current examples to see how it is done).
And by the way, Wikisource is not just for Mishnah . You can contribute
translations of any Torah text (or general text) that interests you.
So consider contributing and tizku lemitzvos.
Dovi J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:45:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Parve, Dairy and Fleishig
I know this is a bit past the original post, but I've been away...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:50:32 -0400 (EDT), Batya Medad wrote:
> Now to continue, in the same vein, but fleishig and parve... (I think
> I'm the one who started the dairy cake thread.) As a public service...
>
> About how parve is falafel when shwarma's sold at the same stand? In
> Israel, at least, many of the places provide a "salad bar" and even if
> they don't pieces of meat can fall in the salads, and the serving
> implements touch the meat. So, when you really think about it, can you,
> or would you consider yourself parve and have ice cream or coffee with
> milk afterwards? I wouldn't, and I asked a neighbor who had a parve
> falafel place for a number of years. I asked him if my "psak" was
> neurotic or correct. He told me (his real training is as a rav) that I
> was correct. Meat does get mixed with the salads.
While Batya's "psak" here seems reasonable, I am not at all sure that it
is "muchrach" (proven?). And, I think it is entirely possible that this
psak might be different for ashkenazim and sephardim. To understand why
this might be true, we need to go back to the prohibition of milk and
meat. From Torah law, there is a violation not for eating them in the
same meal, but rather for eating them together IF they have been cooked
together (yes, there are other prohibitions, not relevant here).
The Talmud discusses the rabbinic requirement to further separate the
two products. But how far that separation must go is a dispute among the
rishonim, and a matter of minhag. The sephardic poskim generally hold
that the rabbinic requirement is to wait (at least aprox.) six hours
between eating meat and eating milk. On the other hand, ashkenazi poskim
generally require only that they not be eaten in the same meal. All that
is required to separate meat and milk in this case would be bentching.
An interesting aside - today where the minhag among many ashkenazim is
to wait six hours, they still MUST bentch (or make some afterbracha)
between the meat and milk. This, I believe, is NOT the case for
sephardim. They could, theoretically have a long meal where the first
course was meat and the last course milk.
Ok, back to the main point. This difference between ashkenazik and
sephardic poskim is codified in the shulchan aruch where the bais yosef
requires six hours and the rama does not. The rama encourages waiting
six hours as an appropriate chumra! And indeed, it seems based on that,
much of the ashkenazik community accepted this chumra. So much so that
the Aruch Hashulchan, when he quotes the rama states that waiting six
hours has been universally accepted (and while clearly it has not been,
it was clearly so in his experience of eastern europe).
Next - there is a principle in halacha that the greater the possible
consequence, the greater the care that must be taken. Or for our
purposes, the less the possible consequence, the smaller the care that
must be taken. We see this idea in many places in halacha, for example
while safek (doubt) in a torah law is dealt with stringently, a rabbinic
doubt is dealt with leniently. Also, there is a general rule that the
rabbis will not enact a legislation to prevent the accidental violation
of a rabbinic law (that is, legislation is only enacted to prevent the
possible violation of a torah law).
All this being said, the question is how much care must be taken to
prevent accidentally eating meat and milk within the same six hours. For
me, the answer to that question, especially for ashkenazim, is NOT
MUCH. As a result, since the salad's ingredients are parve, I think
there is at least room to consider the fact that I do not need to be
concerned with the possible (even probable) accidental drop of a small
amount of meat juice into the salad. (A meat piece would be visible as
you put it into your falafel, I think.)
Just to clarify, I am not saying that Batya is certainly wrong. Rather I
am saying it seems less than obvious. And I am certainly not paskening
any shaylos. But what Batya is suggesting, although on its face
reasonable, seems to me to be, for ashkenazim, a chumra rather than a
requirement.
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:45:57 +0200
Subject: RE: Vegetarianism
I think that Rabbi A.Y. Kook was a vegetarian. In the commentary to the
siddur known as Olat reiyah, an anthology of his commentaries relevant
to the siddur, we find that he explains the passage "vearva lashem
minhat yehuda viyrushalayim kiymei olam ucheshanim kadmoniot" as meaning
that in the future world, the vegetable offering of the mincha will be
as pleasing to G-d as the animal offerings in ancient times. I think
that some controversy arose over this because people understood that
Rabbi Kook was implying that animal sacrifices would never be renewed.
Joseph Tabory
13 Zerach Barnet St.
Jerusalem,95404
Tel: 02-6519575
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 56
