Volume 46 Number 63
Produced: Sat Jan 15 22:02:13 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Baeir Heiteiv
[Perets Mett]
Beauty in Marriage
[Russell J Hendel]
Cost of Simchas (5)
[Nadine Bonner, Janice Gelb, Carl Singer, Leah S. Gordon,
Martin Stern]
Cost of s'machot (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Freda B Birnbaum]
Definition of Meal (was Cake Substituting for Bread)
[Yisrael Medad]
Silk Screened Torahs
[Ben Katz]
Waste and Buffets
[Batya Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:20:47 +0000
Subject: Baeir Heiteiv
someone wrote:
> It would appear that R' Zecharia Mendel's last name is not known, as
> it appears nowhere in the biographical material prepared by Machon
> Yerushulayim, in the haskamot and introductions to the first edition
> of his work (reprinted in the MY edition), or on MY's "shaar" page.
Why do you think R' Zecharya Mendl had a 'last name'?
Perets Mett
whose 'last' name is probably less than 200 years old
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:03:47 -0500
Subject: RE: Beauty in Marriage
Tzvi Stein writes in response to my statement that the Bible writes
that Rachel was attractive to teach us that this is an important part
of marriages as follows
> From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
> "Physical attractiveness is a very important componenet of a marriage."
> One of the great roshei yeshiva of Lithuania, is supposed to
> have remarked to his son, who refused a "shidduch" on grounds that,
> although the candidate was pious and of good lineage, she lacked
> physical attractiveness: "Vos iz dos, an esreg, vos hot a din hodor?"
>Reminds of a similar story where a rosh yeshiva chastised a bochur who
>he felt was too picky: "It's not an esrog, that it has to be perfect".
I feel this is a dangerous approach (if unqualified). After all we all
know that there are marriages that break up with serious sins (like
adultery) because the need of people for attractiveness was not
acknowledged.
My main point is that it is not for us--the general community--to create
an atmosphere where people think that the quest for perfect beauty is
something to be ashamed of. Too many people suffer from this (I am of
course not denying that physical attractiveness generally gets replaced
by other more solid bases in marraige...but every couple has the right
to start out the way they want and we should advocate this) In passing:
That is exactly what the Bible states about Jacob...he did marry her for
her attractiveness (Nothing else is mentioned about his choice)
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nadine Bonner <nfbonner@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:46:18 -0500
Subject: Cost of Simchas
Leah S. Gordon wrote
> 2. Why did you host the wedding in Brooklyn if your family lives in the
> midwest?? Surely you could have found a suitable environment closer to
> home...? This smacks to me of the NY-centrism that I find really
> irritating in the Jewish community.
1. The prices are much higher in the midwest because they don't have the
abundance of kosher facilities. The quotes I got were so high that when
the chossan and kallah said they would rather have the wedding in NY
because they were living there and so were their friends, I ended up
saving a bundle.
2. I hated living in the midwest and moved my family back east a month
after the wedding.
3. I don't live in NY, but it happens to be the largest Jewish center
outside Israel. For Jewish food, culture and entertainment, it can't be
beat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Cost of Simchas
Leah S. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> Nadine Bonner wrote in part:
>> "But in the case of my older daughter, her chassen's parents informed
>> me at the start that they would not be paying a penny towards the
>> wedding. While that was a blow, I felt it gave me the right to call
>> the shots and limit the guest list. [snip]
> Why would you feel that you had "the right to call the shots" based on
> the financial contribution of the other family? The decisions, guest
> list, and social obligations are not something bought and sold, at
> least among "nice" people IMO. I'm not saying the groom's parents
> were being particularly honorable by not contributing, but it doesn't
> disenfranchise them from being hosts.
This is true, but only to a certain extent. If the groom's family is not
contributing to the wedding monetarily (which used to be the standard
practice), the bride's family certainly has the right to limit the
number of guests to what they can afford based on the type of event
being considered. However, I would agree that it doesn't give the
bride's family leeway to, say, limit the groom's guest list to
significantly fewer people than the bride's list because the bride's
side is paying for it.
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:00:01 -0500
Subject: Cost of Simchas
Not that it's any of my business but (1) it's traditionally the Kallah's
family that plans and hosts the wedding (and I speak as the father of 3
sons) as much as I'd like to call the shots, even paying FLOPS only
gives me limited say-so. Certainly I hope to have a positive
relationship with in-laws so I'm in on the decisions or asked to voice
my opinions / desires -- but I'm absolutely NOT the decisionmaker.
Also, as in this case, if the Kallah's parents are paying all of the
bills (because apparently the chussan's family said that they would "not
be paying a penny" -- let's defer that discussion) then the Kallah's
parents have the right and the responsibility to call all of the shots
-- to include: the venue, number of guests, cost of meals,
entertainment, photographer, etc. -- They should allocate a reasonable
number of invitations to the chussan's family, but that's as far as
their outreach should go.
The Chussan's parents are NOT hosting this event, they are participants
and, for that matter, guests of the Kallah's parents. That was their
decision. {Presuming, of course, that there are no "unusual" financial
circumstances.}
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:25:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Cost of Simchas
Carl Singer wrote, in part:
> Also, as in this case, if the Kallah's parents are paying all of the
> bills (because apparently the chussan's family said that they would "not
> be paying a penny" -- let's defer that discussion) then the Kallah's
> parents have the right and the responsibility to call all of the shots
> -- to include: the venue, number of guests, cost of meals,
> entertainment, photographer, etc. -- They should allocate a reasonable
> number of invitations to the chussan's family, but that's as far as
> their outreach should go.
>
> "The Chussan's parents are NOT hosting this event, they are
> participants and, for that matter, guests of the Kallah's parents.
> That was their decision. {Presuming, of course, that there are no
> "unusual" financial circumstances.}"
But this exact set of points is where I disagree with you. It is my
strong opinion that *both* sets of parents *are* hosts, regardless of
any financial arrangements. It's not a highest-bidder-makes-decisions
kind of affair, or at least it shouldn't be, by my understanding of
noblesse oblige and general etiquette.
The way to make these decisions properly (and btw to those who scoff at
Ms. Post and Miss Manners, they do indeed have good guidance in these
matters) is to sit down together, as joint hosts, before talking about
money at all--and to talk about what kinds of goals they have. After
coming to an agreement, then figure out the funding. And revise goals
as necessary.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:54:00 +0000
Subject: Cost of Simchas
on 12/1/05 3:13 am, Leah S. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> Why would you feel that you had "the right to call the shots" based
> on the financial contribution of the other family? The decisions, guest
> list, and social obligations are not something bought and sold, at least
> among "nice" people IMO. I'm not saying the groom's parents were being
> particularly honorable by not contributing, but it doesn't
> disenfranchise them from being hosts.
I cannot understand Leah's position but perhaps she has not been
involved in marrying of children. Has she not heard that there is a
principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune? That person is the
host and the mechutanim simply are not. Quite apart from this, it is
utterly immoral for those who are not paying to expect the other party
to spend considerable extra sums to satisfy their whims. When my 3 sons
got married I always asked my mechutanim how many guests I could invite
and would never have dreamt of exceeding that number without
paying. Similarly with my 7 daughters' weddings, I offered the
mechutanim 50% of the number I deemed I could afford. If they offered to
pay for extra guests that was no problem, if not I simply told them it
was not possible to exceed my limit.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:11:28 -0500
Subject: Cost of s'machot
Many people have talked about limiting the cost of weddings by reducing
the guest size ... I personally think this is the wrong approach. I
think it is better to invite everyone you would like to see, be
welcoming to your fellow Jew, but make the wedding not necessarily at
the most convenient place or time ... this way the wedding is cheaper
(because of the timing) and anyone who feels they are close enough to
you will show up. I did this at my wedding with my guests, despite both
my wife and I being poor graduate students at the time, and I have never
regretted it.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:42:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Cost of s'machot
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Ari Trachtenberg wrote:
[See above. Mod]
That makes a lot of sense. Another way is to have less food and more
people, e.g. having a reception after the chupa which is party food but
not a full meal. But you don't want to make it so difficult that people
who really are further in to the inner circle are put to a lot of
trouble. Big balancing act...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:56:44 +0200
Subject: Definition of Meal (was Cake Substituting for Bread)
By chance, I noticed that the Meshech Chochma comments, on the verse in
this week's coming Parsha, Bo, Exodus 12:4 "ish l'fi ochlo", each man
according to how much he eats, - that this is to be interpreted "as much
as he is used to eating (l'fi hergel achilato) and not a voracious?
grubby? exagerated munching (v'lo achila gasa)".
Although Rashi interprets the phrase as meaning that a normal person
should be able to eat a measure of at least a k'zayit and a sick person
and the elderly can't and so they are excused, the Ikar Siftei Chachamim
logically asks that since the Pesach sacrifice should be eaten "until
satiation", what difference does it make if one is ill and therefore
cannot eat the full quantity? Even a mnormal person should eat until he
is full, whatever the quantity.
I think this has relevance for the discussion that started with the
question does one who substitutes cake for bread have to wash and bench
and under what circumstances. Rashi would insist on a measurement that
is objective, i.e., k'zayit, whereas the Meshech Chochma would, I
presume, tend to go for a subjective standard, i.e., the feeling of
satiation.
Whether or not Shabbat plays a distinctive role in this aspect of what
represents the fixing (k'vee'a) of a meal, as was suggested, I am not
sure. I do feel, however, that there is a difference between coffee/tea
and cake in the morning before davening and sitting down specifically
for the Seudah Shlishit and deciding not to have bread but still have
your cake and Seudah fulfillment as well.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:20:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Silk Screened Torahs
I was surprised to learn that when printing first came out there
were many responsa allowing PRINTED sifrei Torah. I believe the logic
was that the sofer still had to put in the letters and apply the ink.
See Louis Jacobs' book Etz Chayim Hee which I think is translated as The
Tree of Life or The Everlasting Tree where this is discussed, as I
recall.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:03:19 +0200
Subject: Waste and Buffets
Thirty five years ago when our wedding was being planned, I asked why we
couldn't just have a "simple buffet", and I was told that it was more
expensive than sit-down. And as I've seen and been involved with more
"events" I realize how true it is. First of all it's the most wasteful
way of serving. Every thing's out on the tables to be "patchkied with."
So left-overs can't be reused, except, maybe things that can be
re-cooked. If you want to save, have fewer choices of served food to
each guest. Nowadays the three-four choices for first and main courses
means tons of extra expense and waste. But at least some of the waste
never left the pots, so they can be safely used at food gmachim or taken
home.
Batya
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 46 Issue 63
