Volume 51 Number 45
                    Produced: Mon Mar  6  5:57:23 EST 2006

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Avel during shloshim not eating meat
         [Jay F Shachter]
Being dan lekah zkhus
         [Meylekh Viswanath]
Credit for Thought without deed/Pru U'rvu
         [Chana Luntz]
Descendants of the Arukh HaShulchan (2)
         [SBA, Nathan Lamm]
Mezuza at work
         [Chaim Tabasky]
Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman (2)
         [Elazar M. Teitz, Samuel P Groner]
Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
         [Orrin Tilevitz]


From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:31:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Avel during shloshim not eating meat

In v51n13, <Danmim@...> wrote:
> someone mentioned that an avel for a parent is not allowed to eat meat or
> poultry during shloshim. Did you ever see a source for this minhag?

This is instantly recognizable as the Karaite practice.  Notice also, in
the above quote, the distinction between meat and poultry, a distinction
that Rabbinic Jews tend not to make.  Incidentally, Karaites also
abstain from alchohol during the shloshim period, which for Karaites
begins at death, not at burial.

Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
Chicago IL  60645-4111


From: Meylekh Viswanath <pviswanath@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:10:02 -0500
Subject: Being dan lekah zkhus

>From: SBA <sba@...>
>The following story is doing the rounds on the WWW - in Yiddish.  I have
>  forwarded it in the original Mameh Loshon to some on my list, but have
>  had requests to translate it for those 'vos farshteyen nisht", so I am
>  sharing it with our Chevra.


>He approached the BB Mechuten, gave him a hearty Mazel Tov and wished
>him all the best.  As he finished giving his Brochos, the Mechuten
>turned to him [RAH] and said: "Keiner hot eich nisht gerufen" ["Nobody
>called you!!].

Very interesting, but at least to my knowledge, "invited" is translated
as "farbeytn" or in some circles, "ayngeladen."  "rufen" would not,
normally, mean "invited."  Rather, it would be like using "likro"
instead of "lezammeyn."

Do khasidim these days use "rufen" for "invite?"

Meylekh Viswanath


From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Fri,  3 Mar 2006 13:26:49 +0000
Subject: Credit for Thought without deed/Pru U'rvu

 Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
> Bernard Raab writes:
> > Is Martin writing a new halachic principle here, in which a good try is
> > deemed to fulfill the mitzvah?"
> Indeed, that may be exactly the case. Chazal tell us that "Machshava
> tova HKB"H metzarefa lema'aseh" - "Hashem 'incorporates' a good thought
> into a deed." What this is generally taken to mean (although there are
> other interpretations) is that if a person attempts to perform a good
> deed and is prevented by circumstances beyond his control, it is
> reckoned as if he had nevertheless performed the good deed.

While I agree that the question of "credit" or schar is in the hands of
HKBH, there seems to me to be a distinction between the credit given for
trying to perform a mitzvah and the actual performance itself.

It may be that the equal credit is given, but I struggle to see how one
can say that the mitzvah has indeed been performed.

And in the case in question, ie pru u'rvu, such a statement would seem
difficult to reconcile with the text of eg the Shulchan Aruch on the

The Shulchan Aruch states Even Haezer siman 1:

"5: When a man has a male and a female he has fulfilled the mitzvah of
pru u'rvu but this is so long as the son is not a eunuch or the daughter

6: If there are born to him a male and female and they die and leave
children behold he has fulfilled the mitzvah of pru u'rvu, when is this
said, when there are grandchildren male and female that come from the
male and female even though the male is from his daughter and the female
is from his son since they come from his two children he has fulfilled
the mitzvah of pru u'rvu but if he has a son and daughter and they die
and one of them leaves a son and daughter he has still not fulfilled
this mitzvah.  Rema: from a mamzer, cheresh shoteh or minor he has
fulfilled the mitzvah."

Now the interesting and noteworthy thing about this is that not only
would it seem that one has not fulfilled the mitzvah unless one has a
boy and girl, but that if one of them then dies without leaving
sufficient children, one has retrospectively failed to fulfil the
mitzvah that one had thought one had previously fulfilled.

Also note that this is a mitzvah that is not only dependent on another
person (ie the wife) but also, it would seem on the actions of one's
children and their respective spouses (assuming they can find any) 20 or
so years in the future!

It is also dependent on one's offspring not being involved in a fatal
car crash or similar, something that is really out of one's hands, no
matter how many children one has (although presumably one could maximise
one's chances by having children on different continents, and never
meeting or travelling together).

Not quite the picture one would seem to be getting from the various
quotes brought on this list up until now.

And Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>

> However, this does not seeem to be the situation with Pru U'Rvu.  That
> situation seems to to say that it is *permissable* for someone to
> divorce after ten years of trying, *NOT* that it is mandatory.

Again I think it is probably useful to have the text of the Shulchan
Aruch and Rema in front of us. This from Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer
siman 1, si'if 3 (although there is more in hilchos gitten):

It is a mitzvah on every man to marry a woman when he is 18 years old
 ... and in any case he should not go beyond 20 without a wife and one
who has exceeded 20 years and does not want to marry, Beis Din should
force him to marry in order to fulfil the mitzvah of pru u'rvu but one
who is busy with Torah and engaged in it and delays marrying in order
not to be engaged with her support and be mevatel in Torah is permitted
to delay".

Rema: And today [b'zman hazeh] the custom is not to force with regard to
this [ie that a man to marry] and so too one who has not fulfilled pru
u'rvu and comes to marry a woman who is not "bas banim" like a barren
woman or an elderly woman or a minor because he loves her or because of
her money even though from the din we should protest in this, the custom
has been for many generations not to get involved in matters of couples
[l'dakedek binyan hazugos] and even if he is married to a woman and
waits with her for ten years [without children] it is not the custom to
force him to divorce her even though he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of
pru u'rvu and so for all other matters of couples so long as there is no
issur in it [by which the Rema means eg a cohen marrying a divorcee

My understanding from various sources is that while this is a Rema, and
often Sephardim do not posken like the Rema, that today Sephardi poskim
pretty much universally follow this Rema - and eg will marry a couple
where he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of pru u'rvu and she is post

 Chana Luntz


From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 16:28:13 +1100
Subject: Descendants of the Arukh HaShulchan

From: Nathan Lamm <>
> R' Meir Bar-Ilan was a grandson of the Arukh HaShulchan. 

You sure?
AFAIK he was a son of the Netziv who was a BIL of the AH.


From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:33:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Descendants of the Arukh HaShulchan

He was both: The Netziv's second wife was his (the Netziv's) niece,
daughter of the Arukh HaShulchan. So R. Meir Bar-Ilan was son of the
Netziv and both nephew and grandson of the Arukh HaShulchan.


From: Chaim Tabasky <tabafkc@...>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:30:10 +0200
Subject: Mezuza at work

>  Mark Symons wrote:
>What are the halachic opinions about whether it is necessary to have a
>mezuza on the doors of one's work place?

The Oruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah, 286, obligates work places in two
circumstances. If the owner of the business is a Jew, then the work
place is obligated unless there are rooms that are used exclusively by
non Jews.  If the owner is a non Jew but a Jew has exclusive use of a
room, it is like a rental and the Jew is obligated (outside Israel
assuming the workplace will be in the charge of the Jewish worker for
more than 30 days). If the worker may be removed by his boss at any
time, this may not apply, and a question should be asked about specific

According to the Rambam there may be no obligation at a workplace. The
Rambam exempts storage areas and certain types of shops that are
obligated by the Shulchan Oruch and most Poskim. One would have to
consult a posek about specific circumstances in which the Rambam could
be relied upon.



From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 14:40:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman

> where has the custom in some congregations arisen for the Reader to
> pause before the names of the ten sons of Haman and for the congregation
> to read them aloud before the Reader does so?

The Rogatchover (R. Yosef Rosen of Dvinsk) writes that it _is_ an
obligation for all to say it.  The reason he gives is that the
obligation of m'gillah is not to hear it, but to read it, as witness the
b'rach, "Al mikra m'gillah" (on the reading of the m'gillah).  Hearing
it, if both reader and auditor have intent that the auditor fulfill the
obligation, is halachically the equivalent of reading.  However, he
writes, while hearing is like speaking, hearing in a single breath is
not like speaking in a single breath; i.e., the hearing is just the
equivalent of saying the words, but the _manner_ of saying is not
satisfied just by hearing.  Therefore, each individual must say it in
order to satisfy the obligation of saying it in a single breath.  (That
it is said outside of the m'gillah is not a drawback, because unlike
Torah reading, if a portion of the m'gillah is read by heart, it does
not render the obligation unfulfilled.)


From: Samuel P Groner <spg28@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman

Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 690:16) writes
that "Ein Ha-Kahal Tzrichim Lomar Im Ha-Chazzan Et Aseret Bnei Haman
Be-Neshima Achat, She-Gam Mi-Zeh Yotzim Yedei Chovah Me-HaShaliach
Tzibbur Mi-Din Shomea Ke-Oneh," the congregation does not HAVE TO
[emphasis added] say the names of Haman's ten sons with the chazzan in
one breath, for they fulfill their obligation also from this from the
chazzan via [the halakhic principle of] "shomea ke-oneh," that a hearer
is like an answerer.  This would seem to imply that there is no problem
with this practice, it's just not required.

Sammy Groner


From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day

Eitan Fiorino wrote:

> Halachah recognizes multiple "New Year's Days" for Jews (and probably
> for non-Jews

January 1 is not one of them.

> Does celebrating tu b'shevat "take away" from Rosh Hashana?

Of course not, because it is a new year for trees - technically, for
stuff like orla - and it is one of the 'new years' listed in the Mishna

> I think if one wanted to invest January 1 with some particular Jewish
> ritual, particularly one that mimicked elements of Rosh Hashana, then
> one could be accused of engaging in something un-halachic.

What do you think you're doing when you wish someone a 'happy and
healthy new year' other than, as I pointed out, mipnei darchei shalom?

> you must demonstrate HOW such an observance "takes away" from Rosh
> Hashana and you must also show that if there is indeed "taking away,"
> that such action is forbidden.

Let's back up for a second.  One of the technical reasons why attending
a new year's eve party is forbidden is 'lo telchu bechokot hagoi',
which is lav #262 in the sefer hachinuch.  I was merely, using one of
Rabbi Broyde's criteria, trying to explain why this prohibition might
not apply to valentine's day.  This criterion is that the practice must
not inconsistent with Jewish tradition. You will first have to
concede - otherwise there is nothing for us to talk about - that 

(1) there is nothing in Jewish tradition that marks January 1 as the
beginning of a new year;
(2) there is nothing in Jewish tradition that makes the beginning of a
new year - any new year - a time for revelry;
(3) the only personal new year we observe - Rosh Hashana - is a time not
for revelry but for serious prayer; and
(4) in Jewish tradition, we wish others a 'happy and healthy new year'
before Rosh Hashana and at no other time.

I think, given the items above that you will have to concede thatI have
made an airtight case that observing January 1 - whether it's with
seriously wishing 'happy new year', with noisemakers, or with alcohol -
is inconsistent with Jewish tradition.  Having done so, I respectfully
submit that the burden of proof that the act is permissible is yours.


End of Volume 51 Issue 45