Volume 64 Number 93
Produced: Tue, 23 Feb 21 11:45:49 +0000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Doing Laundry Halachically
[Immanuel Burton]
For trolley enthusiasts
[Joel Rich]
Need for a minyan at chuppas
[Susan Buxfield]
Tachanun on Purim Meshulash
[Martin Stern]
The Megillah and Women's Names
[Yakir Hameiri]
Timing of Parshat Zachor.
[Immanuel Burton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 16,2021 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Doing Laundry Halachically
In MJ 64#92, Professor Levine highlighted the ruling b The Council of Erudite
Torah Sages regarding washing men's and women's clothing together at the same
time in the same washing machine. I have just one question about this:
Can I wash a mixed load of men's and women's clothing if one of the types of
clothing is double-wrapped?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 17,2021 at 02:01 AM
Subject: For trolley enthusiasts
For trolley enthusiasts: Reuvain falls (or jumps off from) a sixth floor
balcony. As he passes by the fourth floor a bullet from Shimon's fourth floor
apartment is released (maybe accidentally, or just to let off steam, or to kill
Levi across the street) piercing Reuvain's brain and destroying it. As Reuvain's
body passes the third floor and awning (which he and Shimon may have been aware
or unaware of) was open, or is opened, before Reuvain reaches it) and breaks his
fall. In each case what is the secular and halachic cause of death? What
liability is cast on each participant?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 21,2021 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Need for a minyan at chuppas
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#92):
> Susan Buxfield wrote (MJ 64#91):
>
>> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#90):
>>
>>> Why he refers to Shulchan Aruch, Eben HaEzer 34:4, eludes me - it is
>>> concerned with birchat erusin which should be said with a minyan but are
>>> valid even without one. This would appear to be irrelevant to birchot
>>> nissuin
>>
>> AFAIK birchot erusin and birchot nissuin are the same thing. The brachot can
>> be recited at any time, starting at the erusin.
>
> They have completely different purposes though we perform both together
> nowadays to avoid the sort of problems evident throughout Mas. Ketubot ...
Of course they are, but the discussion was not concerning erusin and nissuim but
rather birchot erusin and birchot nissuin which I maintained are the same.
>> At a minimum, Kiddushin only requires three, the bride and two witnesses one
>> of whom could also be the shaliach.
> Presumably this is a typo and Susan meant four, the groom, the bride and two
> witnesses ... What does Susan mean by 'the shaliach?
The Even HaEzer 35-2 states that the groom could send two men to the bride one
of whom would be the Shaliach (messenger) Kiddushin and at the same time serve
as a witness together with the other man. If there would be a minyan even
without the groom, the shaliach could say the brachot erusin. Afterwards upon
the arrival of the bride to the home of the groom, the nissuin would be complete.
>> While brachot are an integral part of any Jewish ceremony only when there is
>> a mandatory bracha d'oraitha does its lack of recital invalidate the action
>> about to be taken.
>
> All berachot are derabbanan [Rabbinically ordained, MOD] and therefore
> cannot invalidate an action bedieved [ex post facto].
Except for Birkat HaMazon. If you don't say the paragraph "retzeh" after eating
a Shabbat meal, it is as if nothing was said and birkat hamazon has to be repeated.
>> And as part of a larger ceremony the lack of a bracha and the lack of the
>> subsequent action has often no effect on the overall status of the ceremony.
>> For example the lack of spices during Havdalah.
> Spices are not an intrinsic part of havdalah.
Depends what is meant by intrinsic. If a person has spices and does not intend
to smell them, I would think he would be considered an apikoros since the
chachamim designated them to be included in havdalah. There is a big machloket
if a woman who makes havdalah by herself should make a bracha on the ner [the
lit havdalah candle]. The Mishna Brurah holds that there is no need for women to
make a blessing on the ner (biur halacha 296 dh lo yavdil leatzman) however R
Moshe Feinstein, R Chaim Kanievsky and R Eliashiv hold that she is permitted
since it is all part of the same ceremony.
>> Martin then discusses whether a minyan could be arranged for a town like
>> Darwen. That is purely a matter of logistics where the wish is to fulfill the
>> issue in the best possible manner.
>
> Susan has misunderstood the point I was making. In the Middle Ages, it was
> quite common for Jews to live in small communities which did not have a
> minyan. Because of the danger involved in traveling because of highwaymen
> etc., it was difficult to bring people from outside to complete a minyan so a
> chuppah would have had to be held with fewer and the sheva berachot could not
> be recited. Nowadays this is generally not the case and it is hardly even
> inconvenient to call people from elsewhere if necessary so the special
> heterim [leniencies, MOD] are hardly relevant. I chose Darwen as a place
> where I only knew of one Jewish family.
I would suggest the point has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. There is the
optimal and the minimal way of doing things depending on the circumstances even
in our times.
>> He then suggests that perhaps without brachot, relationships may not be
>> permitted even though there is 100% Kiddushin.
> Kiddushin does not permit relationships. For that one requires nissuin which
> are basically the sheva berachot under the chuppah.
While kiddushin is technically erusin, the word is often used for the entire
ceremony since today in most cases erusin is followed immediately by nissuin.
>> The parallel to Chuppat Niddah is not relevant since in that case her body is
>> what deters a relationship. While the issue of Massechet Kalla is that she
>> has> a right to expect brachot. If she is willing to forgo then there's
>> nothing to prevent a relationship.
>
> On the contrary Massechet Kallah states specifically that "A bride without
> berachah is forbidden to her husband like a niddah without immersion". If
> Susan were correct, there would be no real objection to a couple living
> together outside marriage (provided she immerses each month). But this is
> what is considered zenut [licentious behaviour]. Some hold that, where a s
> chuppah ha had to be conducted without a minyan, the couple cannot cohabit
> until such time as they can assemble a minyan for the recital of the sheva
> berachot.
See Even HaEzer 26-1 Rem"a where it states "However, if she dedicates herself
exclusively for him and she immerses for him, there are those who would say that
this is allowed and she would be a pilegesh [a mistress in common English] as
described in the Torah and there are those (Rambam) who say that this is
forbidden.
The Beit Shmuel (Para 2) commentary on the above Rema discusses the objections
of M. Kallah and of other objectors. The last few words specifically state that
only if she wants to be a wife and not a pilgesh that there has to be brachot.
>> Why Kiddushin should be considered 'arcane' is difficult to fathom. Although
>> formal marriage generally lasts longer and is usually more stable especially
>> for children, Kiddushin is by no means the only kosher relationship, to the
>> chagrin of the Rambam, as is documented in this week's parsha. The Hebrew
>> slave is permitted to live with a shifcha kena'anit, the sold daughter with
>> yiud to her master and the yavama to her yavam by 'biah' even against her
>> wish (if pursued today there is usually a rabbinic kiddushin otherwise
>> halitzah is the normal procedure).
>
> The first two case are specific to Hebrew slaves and have no other practical
> application.
Only the Hebrew slave selling himself or sold by the Beis Din was banned after
the fall of the temple. Selling a daughter while not recommended according to
the Shulchan Aruch is not forbidden by Jewish Law although obviously civil law
prohibits such a sale. However those were kosher relationships.
> It has been suggested that this might provide a mechanism for removing mamzer
> status since the children of a shifcha kena'anit are avadim who could
> theoretically be manumitted and be ordinary Jews, no longer mamzerim like
> their father. All this is of course purely theoretical nowadays.
Not at all. A non-Jewish woman that can be convinced to remove the shoes of her
future mamzer husband (ie to be acquired as a halachic shifcha) and to immerse
in a mikvah to become a shifcha kena'anit can marry with Kiddushin (Even HaEzer
4-20). Her children will be considered as his children upon freeing them, unlike
any other normal Jew that would be forbidden to marry a shifcha, any such a
kiddushin being invalid and the offspring not considered as his children.
Since slavery is no longer permitted in civil law the halachic ordinance of Dina
Demalchuta Dina [the law of the land is our law] would suggest that making a
woman into a halachic shifcha would be forbidden by halacha today.
Slavery is a concept whose interpretation is regulated by legislated law. If no
civil law has been violated (i.e. shoe removal and immersion) , then surely DDD
does not apply and her status remains as a free woman by civil law unaffected by
her halachic status as a shifcha kna'anit.
The same idea applies to Heter Mea Rabbanim [marrying a second wife when divorce
of the first is impossible]. She remains an unmarried woman by civil law and an
eishes ish [a married woman] by halacha. For if their marriage would be
registered they would then be guilty of bigamy according to civil law.
While to most people mamzerut seem rather far-fetched, there is a significant
body of young Jewish people whose mothers' separated without a Get and they are
a product of a secondary relationship.
> As for the yevamah, her original kiddushin with her first husband just
> 'carries forward' to his brother, the yavam.
Even HaEzer 166-2 states that there is no need for kiddushin, but if there is
no kiddushin she is not acquired until after the first relationship.
The rabbonim would not have instituted kiddushin with a yavam if kiddushin "just
'carries forward' to his brother, the yavam".
> The yibbum is equivalent to the final stage of nissuin. If she objects, he
> cannot force her any more than any husband can force his wife.
However Even HaEzer 166-7 states that if he did force her against her will she
is acquired as a yavamah unlike Kiddushin where her prior consent is required in
order for her to be considered as having been acquired as a wife. Obviously no
one would or should condone such behaviour.
>> What is important to comprehend is that the main purpose of Kiddushin is
>> to provide financial security to the bride. Food and clothing in return for
>> financial interests in his wife's income and property.
>
> This is specific to nissuin, an arusah has no financial claim on her husband
> nor he on her.
As stated above most people understand kiddushin to include nissuin. In any case
an arusa can demand from the groom to provide her food after a year has elapsed
without nissuin.
>> In today's world where many women are financially independent, there are
>> those who object to a husband's automatic right to her paycheck, to his
>> ability to inherit her in place of her children from a previous marriage and
>> of course the general misogynistic attitude to the giving of a "get".
>
> A woman is entirely entitled to tell her husband that she prefers to be
> financially independent, and live off her personal income, in which case she
> forgoes any claim for support, but she can't have it both ways and say "What
> is yours is mine but what is mine is nothing to do with you!"
The Gemara and Shulchan Aruch both state that in such an arrangement any income
in excess of what she needs to eat belongs to her husband.
She also cannot deny him the profits accruing from the "fruits of her trees"
(property she brought into the marriage) nor the inheritance of her property if
she dies first, and he still has to pay for her burial and afterwards feed her
unmarried offspring from a previous marriage.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 23,2021 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun on Purim Meshulash
While in certain circles, people grab any opportunity to omit tachanun, it
occurred to me that this year there might be a valid reason to do so in a walled
city on Sunday 16 Adar when the Purim seudah and mishloach manot take place -
Purim Meshulash.
I suppose that chassidim will omit it as in every year because of the hava amina
[rejected suggestion] in Megillah 2a that the megillah can be read on 'shitsar
veshivsar' [16th and 17th Adar].
Does anyone know what is the non-chassidic minhag in Yerushalayim in a year like
this one which occurs fairly seldom?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir Hameiri <yakir.h@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 16,2021 at 03:01 PM
Subject: The Megillah and Women's Names
Prof Levine wrote (MJ 64#92):
> The scroll should be referred to as the Megillah of Mordechai's Niece.
Please explain who Mordechai's niece was and where she is described as such in
the Megillah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 17,2021 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Timing of Parshat Zachor.
In order to fulfil the commandment to remember Amalek, we read Parshat Zachor on
an annual basis. The reading was instituted to take place on the Shabbat before
Purim in order to have this reading take place in proximity to Purim, when Haman
was defeated.
Before the Purim story happened, when was Parshat Zachor read? Or was the
mitzvah of remembering Amalek fulfilled differently?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 64 Issue 93
