Volume 53 Number 07
Produced: Sun Nov 12 20:39:29 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Babies, shiva and superstition
[Chi Halevi]
Minhag to use Ring
[Michael Kahn]
Not Holding Babies while Sitting Shiva? (4)
[Yisrael Medad, Elazar M. Teitz, Akiva Miller, Gershon Dubin]
Peeling an Orange an Shabbos (2)
[Stephen Phillips, Rabbi Wenger]
variant or misprint?
[Art Werschulz]
Walking down the Aisle (2)
[Batya Medad, Carl Singer]
Wedding Bands
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chi Halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:17:14 -0600
Subject: Babies, shiva and superstition
Shalom to Klal Yisrael:
Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote that
> Recently I heard a new--chumrah, custom, halacha? Nobody seemed to
> know. But some grandparents who were sitting shiva were "informed" by
> somebody that they were forbidden to hold babies. It is so common to
> see mourners holding young children and babies. They all say it's
> their greatest comfort. What's behind it? Obviously it's not a
> universally accepted psak. Why make a difficult time more so?
Let me go out on a limb and say that in my experience such prohibitions
originate in the contemptible superstitious belief in the ayeen ha'ra,
the "evil eye".
According to the superstition, children are especially susceptible to
the evil eye. I'd say this originates in the fact that children,
especially babies, are more vulnerable to many physical maladies than
adults who have lived through childhood diseases and thereby gained
immunities babies and children have yet to acquire.
I recognize that such superstition has plagued us since Torah-times, but
think it should be forbidden to Jews because it says, in effect, that
even though God has blessed us, His people, it means zilch when stacked
up against, say, Evil Eye Fleagle (the Li'l Abner comic strip
character). Dunno about you, but I find it repulsive to believe a human
has more power than God Almighty.
If you don't like my seat-of-the-pants scholarship, then take comfort in
the G'mara (Talmud) which says that the descendants of Yosef (Joseph)
are immune to the evil eye (Ber. 20a and 55b). Since, over the
centuries, we Jews have had uncountable inter-tribal marriages, it is
logical to assume that all of us are, in part, descended from Yosef and
hence can laugh at any evil eye.
Kol tuv,
Charles Chi (Yeshaya) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:13:08 -0500
Subject: Minhag to use Ring
>BTW is there any basis for a woman receiving specifically a ring?
The Aruch Hashukchan EZ 27: writes that "The minhag pashut in our land
is to be mkadesh with a silver or golden ring...and using a ring for
kidushin has a taam nachon (good reason) in chachmas hanistar (hidden
wisdom.)" He then parenthetically quotes a sefer (I can't identify the
rashai tavos) that says that the words "mem stuma" (closed mem- similar
to the shape of a ring) is bgamatriya "azer zera" (help for children?.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:58:47 +0200
Subject: Not Holding Babies while Sitting Shiva?
My wife relates to this issue.
It is not a new chumrah at all.
The Pnei Baruch (published 1986) mentions it and his source is the
Gemara Moed Katan 26B: Rav Papa states it explicitly and the Shulchan
Arukh brings it down as a din.
The reason is that when holding an infant or young child, one most
probably will smile and expression joy or satisfaction, something which
is not permitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:23:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Not Holding Babies while Sitting Shiva?
> Recently I heard a new--chumrah, custom, halacha? Nobody seemed to
> know. But some grandparents who were sitting shiva were "informed" by
> somebody that they were forbidden to hold babies.
>
> Now issue #1: If a question isn't asked of a person, then one
> shouldn't inform, unless that person is the other one's Rav. Correct?
>
> #2: It is so common to see mourners holding young children and
> babies. They all say it's their greatest comfort.
>
> What's behind it? Obviously it's not a universally accepted psak.
> Why make a difficult time more so?
It may not be a universally _observed_ psak, but it is the _accepted_
psak, appearing in the Talmud (Moed Katan 26b), Rambam (Hilchos Eivel
5:20) and Shulchan Aruch (YD 391:1).
The reason is not the holding itself, but that it leads to playing with
the infant, which is a prohibited simcha.
As for issue #1: if one observes a person doing something against
halacha, it is a mitzva to point it out. Of course, it must be done
properly, in a non-embarrassing manner, but it is a mitzva of "hocheiach
tochiach." That mitzva is not restricted to rabbis.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Not Holding Babies while Sitting Shiva?
Batya Medad wrote:
> It is so common to see mourners holding young children and babies.
> They all say it's their greatest comfort. What's behind it? Obviously
> it's not a universally accepted psak. Why make a difficult time more
> so?
Why do you think that this is obvious?
If it is common for you to see people doing something, that proves
nothing about what the halacha is. It is possible that the poskim do
agree that the activity is forbidden, but that it is not a well-known
halacha. (Unless, perhaps what you mean was that it is common to see
this among *rabbis* who are in mourning, in which case I apologize.)
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:59:03 -0500
Subject: Not Holding Babies while Sitting Shiva?
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
> If a question isn't asked of a person, then one shouldn't inform,
> unless that person is the other one's Rav. Correct?
I'm not sure that the mitzva of tochacha is limited to one's rav. This
might be limited by several factors, though, such as the parties'
relationship and the severity and universal acceptance (or otherwise) of
the matter being corrected.
> It is so common to see mourners holding young children and babies.
> They all say it's their greatest comfort. What's behind it? Obviously
> it's not a universally accepted psak. Why make a difficult time more
> so?
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 391:1 The reason is so that he should not
derive the very simcha/comfort you refer to, which is forbidden to an
avel.
I'm not sure of anyone who disputes this as it is a direct quote from a
Gemara.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:15:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Peeling an Orange an Shabbos
> From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
> Can someone please explain to me why peeling an orange on Shabbos is
> permitted?
Because the only way to eat the orange is to remove the peel first; this
is called "Derech Achilah" which is permitted.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Wenger <ewenger@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:47:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Peeling an Orange an Shabbos
In response to Stuart Feldhamer's query: Can someone please explain to
me why peeling an orange on Shabbos is permitted? I understand why it
does not fall under the melacha of Borer, but why isn't it Dash
(threshing)?
Rabbi E. Falk spends a page in his 7 volume Zochor VShomor explaining
this. I will copy over segments of what he says: Although the peels and
shells are commonly inedible e.g. orange and banana peels, and one is
therefore extracting an edible from a non-edible, these activities are
nevertheless not forbidden under the Melacha of Dash. The Poskim give a
number of explanations for this, some of which are as follows: -
(1) Dash is an activity directed at the inner item. Threshing applies
only when the person's action is directed at the inner item i.e. he
actively forces the inner item out of is encasement, as is the case when
threshing grain, removing peas from their pods.......However, peeling
and shelling are activities directed expressly at the outer encasement
i.e. by peeling off the outer encasement the inner food becomes
revealed and ready to use.....
(2) Dash applies only to items that are threshed in very large
quantities. .....such as grain, peas and beans (which are removed from
their pods, sun-dried and stored for many months) and graope juice and
olive oil (which are extracted in large quantities.....and are stored in
their liquid form for months and even years). However, fruit and nuts
are not removed from their encasement until shortly before they are used
and it is therefore common to do so only to small quantities at a
time..........
(3) Dash applies to removing a food from an encasement which only serves
a purpose during the food's development......When the encasement is
required only as a "place of development" for the food, but once the
food is fully developed it no longer serves a useful purpose, to
dislodge the food is Dash. However, when the encasement is clearly
intended to protect the food item even after growth until shortly before
use, the encasement is viewed as part of the frruit itself (i.e. a type
of garment to the fruit) and to separate them from one another is not
within the character of this melacha.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:36:13 -0500
Subject: variant or misprint?
Hi.
My wife picked up a micro-sized minha/maariv booklet. It was published
in Eretz Yisrael, but has emendations that make it work for chutzniks
(e.g., baruch hashem l'olam). It's an Ashkenazi siddur.
She noticed that the bracha "ahavat olam" had the phrasing "v'nismach
b'divrei *talmud* toratecha". I've never seen that word "talmud" in
this bracha (my sample consisting of Ashkenazi siddurim for both Eretz
Yisrael and chutz la'aretz). Is the word "talmud" a variant of some
kind or another? Or is it a misprint?
Thanks.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
Internet: agw STRUDEL cs.columbia.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:35:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Walking down the Aisle
> What is the basis for walking down the aisle? Seems to me that it
> might have (shudder) came from the host culture.
In Israel the bride and groom, on the arms of parents, either their own
or kallah-the 2 mothers, chatan-the two fathers, are escorted by singing
friends (and family, all male). In an Ashkenazi wedding, first the
chattan is brought to the kallah for the bedekkin, and then from there
to the chuppah. Then the friends return for the kallah. And everyone
follows looking for a place to stand/sit.
It's not the dignified "goyish" procession.
Batya
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 05:31:11 -0500
Subject: Walking down the Aisle
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
> What is the basis for walking down the aisle? Seems to me that it might
> have (shudder) came from the host culture.
Two thoughts here.
1 - I don't shudder when I realize that, quite naturally, we have been
influenced by the "host culture" -- otherwise we might still be
shepherds living in tents .... Both good and bad come from same.
2 - Walking down the aisle (and this is pure speculation as I cannot
recall direct sources) may derive from the custom of escorting someone
(a king, a sage, etc.) I do recall a specific requirement ("it is
meritorious to ....") about walking a guest (stranger?) home. When we
have Shabbos guests it's always been our* custom to walk them part way
home. At times I've applied this same practice after davening by
accompanying a visitor to their home from shul. (Again, I don't recall
the specific source for this practice.)
*our == cautionary note -- my wife (the better part of "our")is a Litvak
with Litvishe minhagim.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:03:36 -0500
Subject: Wedding Bands
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
>From: <spooch81@...>
>>Is there any basis in halacha for a man to receive a wedding band
>>under the chuppah? I think I remember reading about this topic in the
>>Igros Moshe but not sure where.
> It's "pas nicht"! BTW is there any basis for a woman receiving
> specifically a ring?
"specifically a ring" -- it seemed that goats and chickens made a mess
and were too tempting for the kehillah as the schmorg was skimpy and the
wedding started 2 hours late. :)
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 7
