Mussar: Asking for M'chilah - No "Buts" About it

Originally published 8/20/11, 9:52 pm.

Avraham: Rabbi Rich, Yitzi asked me for m'chillah, but I don't feel like giving it to him

RRW: Aren't we taught not to be an achzar and to extend m'chillah when asked? ....

Av: I know, but, I still feel something's not right..

RRW: Is he a repeat offender?

Av: No - it's not that

RRW: Well Av, What is it?

Av: I guess Yitzi did say that he's sorry that he confused me with someone else BUT...he said a BUT in his apology

RRW: ??? Continue

Av: He didn't admit he was completely wrong, he passed the buck and partially blamed me anyway

RRW: Was he right?

Av: Hard to tell. What he blamed me for was something unintentional, hardly worth commenting upon. He seemed to be using blame to rationalize the behaviour that he was expressing remorse over.

--------------------

Mussar: when apologizing don't qualify it with "BUTS"

If you do need to express a reservation or caveat try using a separate conversation or email to point out that issue. Otherwise, the BUT may be m'vateil the haratah.

Shalom,
RRW

K'riyyat M'gillah at Night

originally posted on March 3, 2014

מסכת מגילה פרק ב

ב,ה  כל היום כשר לקרות את המגילה, ולקריאת ההלל, ולתקיעת שופר, ולנטילת לולב, ולתפילת המוספין, ולמוספין, ולווידוי הפרים, ולווידוי המעשר, ולווידוי יום הכיפורים, לסמיכה, ולשחיטה, לתנופה, להגשה, לקמיצה ולהקטרה, למליקה, לקבלה, ולהזיה, להשקאת סוטה, ולעריפת העגלה, ולטהר את המצורע.

------------------------------------------

A careful Reading of Mishnah M'gilah shows us that the reading of Esther at night was unknown to the Mishnah.

It was apparently first introduced by R Y'hoshua ben Levi in the Talmud.

For Further Investigation: see the Tosefta for a possible earlier source.


Best Regards,
RRW

Pirsumei Nissa & Af Hein Hayu - Connecting the Dots

Originally published 12/5/10, 7:32 pm.

Based upon my preliminary research we have at least three cases that manifest Pirsumei Nissa in Halachah - (perhaps there are more?)
A. Ner Hanukkah
B. Megillat Purim
C. Arba Kossot

We have several Halachot flowing from this designation
1. "Af hein hayu b'oto hanneis" implies gender equality in the performance of all of the above Mitzvot
2. We are also enjoined to "sell the shirts off our backs" to fulfill these Mitzvot
Some observations
• Women are usually enjoined from drinking too much wine. Obviously this is suspended during arba kossot
• However, re: Megillah, it seems that many Posqim refuse to waive issues of "kol ishah" to permit women to read the Megillah in Public.
Perhaps the Hilluq is the private nature of the Seder vs. the public nature of Megillah
V'tzarich Iyyun
• Another anomaly is that regarding Ner Hanukkah, husbands and wives usually fulfill this jointly. This may be driven by the "uveito" nature of the Mitzvah which pertains to the household [heftza] as opposed to the individuals [gavra].

Shalom,
RRW

For Some, Halacha Makes Conceiving Tough

A somewhat interesting article about something that most do not know about. See
http://forward.com/articles/157819/for-some-halacha-makes-conceiving-tough/?p=2

There is much to discuss on a variety of matters.  One should note, though, that the Halacha is not totally silent on this matter and there are other solutions offered by poskim including one from Rav Moshe Feinstein that lessens the necessary 5 day count from the start of menstruation prior to the counting of the seven clean days. As many women with this problem also have short periods this is viable solution.

Rabbi Ben Hecht 

Aliyot on Tisha B'Av to those who do not fast

Guest Blogger:
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
* * * * *

Aliyot On Tisha B’Av

By Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen

A reoccurring concern is whether a person who does not fast on Tisha B’Av may receive an aliya?

 An ancient custom was for a Kohen who ate on fast days to leave the synagogue prior to Keri’at HaTorah so that an Israelite may receive an aliya in place of the Kohen.  The Bet Yosef derives from this custom the rule that those who break their fast by eating should not receive an aliya on fast days.

            The Bach disagrees.  He contends that even should a person eat on a fast day, he still is halachicly permitted to receive an aliya.  His logic is that the presence of ten Jews who actually fast in the synagogue generates an obligation upon the congregation at large to read the special Keri’at HaTorah for fast days.  This obligation is incumbent upon everyone in the synagogue, including  those who do not fast.  The Bach concludes that the common custom is not to grant an aliya to one who eats on a fast day.  Yet, should such a Kohen be called to the Torah (b’d’’iavad) based on the argument expressed, it is permissible (Tur, Orech Chayyim 566; see Bet Tosef and Bach).

            Should the fast day occur on Monday or Thursday, then the Mishneh Berurah rules,

a Kohen who ate may receive an aliya for Shacharit.  The reason is that on such days there is a communal obligation to read the Torah in the morning.  Even though on fast days the portion read is altered to signal the fast, the basic obligation to have a Tora reading in the synagogue is still operational.  All Jews in the synagogue have such an obligation, even those who do not fast.  Though some Sages do not agree with this logic, there is a consensus that should a Kohen who ate be called to the Tora during Shacharit, he may accept the aliya (Mishna Berura, citing the Magen Avraham, Orech Chayyim 566:19).

            What about an aliya for a non-faster at Mincha?  The Mishna Berurah notes divergent positions, yet favors the stringent practices.  He says that those who contend that a person who ate should not receive an aliya believe that should such a person recite the Birkat HaTora at Mincha, it would be an unwarranted Beracha (beracha levatala).  Accordingly, if a Kohen has eaten, on Tisha B’Av, for example, he should leave the synagogue so that he would not be called to the Tora.  The Mishna Berura concludes that if the Kohen is a talmid chacham who, due to sickness or error, ate on the fast day and is ashamed to publicly indicate that he is not fasting, such a person may rely on the lenient position and accept an aliya for Mincha (Mishna Berurah, Orech Chayyim 566:21).

           

The Aruch HaShulchan rules that all the limitations restricting an aliya to a Kohen who ate on a fast day relate to non-official communal fast days.  On a day like Tisha B’Av, all may receive an aliya, whether such a person actually fasts or not.  The rationale is that on official fast days the community is obligated to hear the Keri’at HaTorah (Orech Chayyim 566:11 – This position appears to be based on the logic of the Bach).

           

The Chatam Sofer relates that one year, due to illness, he ate on Tisha B’Av.  The concern was whether he was permitted to receive an aliya at Mincha.  He noteed that, based upon the position of the Bach, he should have no qualms about having an aliya. In addition, the Chatam Sofer presented a logical argument to support his position.  He reasoned that even if a person broke his fast, such a person still is required to observe a number of Tisha B’Av customs.  He may not shower or bathe.  He refrains from anointment with soothing oils.  This suggests that even should a person break the fast, such a person observes a variety of other Tisha B’Av stringencies.  Accordingly, he may certainly receive an aliya since he is not rejecting all the obligations of the day.  He is still observing Tisha B’Av.  The Chatam Sofer concluded that he consulted with great decisors of Halacha and they all agreed with his ruling (Responsa Chatam Sofer, Orech Chayyim 157).

As such, rabbis in their senior years or those sick may receive aliyot on Tisha B’Av even should they not fast.

Best Regards,
RRW

Basic Halachic Literacy for Students

Here is a simplified program designed for young students to help them grow in their mastery of Basic Halachah. This e-version is designed for students in Ashkenazi Yeshivot.

Grades 7 and 8 -
Complete the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

Grades 9 and 10 -
Complete the Chayei Adam

Grades 11, 12 and 4 Years of College and/or Bet Midrash
Complete one volume of Mishnah B'rurash a year over six years.

-----------------------------------------

Sephardic Students might take a different track entirely.

Here is one model:

Grades 7 and 8 - Sefer Ben Ish Chai.

Grades 9 and up should complete either -
A) Kaf Hachim
or
B) Yalkut Yosef.

Kol Hashoneh Halachot... 

Best Regards,
RRW

JVO: Gelatin

Jewish Values Online is a website that presents the Jewish view on a variety of issues. Some of these issues are specifically Jewish, and some relate to the world around us --  then presents answers from each of the denominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster, Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members on their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues our series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is about one of the questions to which Rabbi Wolpoe responded.

* * * * *
Question: Is gelatin kosher?

Rabbi Wolpoe's answer

At first glance, any Gelatin made with strictly Kosher ingredients would be considered as Kosher by almost everyone.

However, Gelatin made from Unkosher ingredients falls into a certain Gray Area.

Unkosher ingredients usually cannot make for a Kosher Product. The exceptions could include when the Unkosher ingredient has been completely "denatured" beyond being edible.  At the point that it is no longer edible, it is no longer considered to be food.  Later on this product, having lost its identify can be reconstituted as Kosher.

Thus, Gelatin - made even from Pork Products - may indeed become acceptable by this logic, namely that its original form has been lost or destroyed.

The problem with this approach is that one is not allowed to purposefully make a non-Kosher product into a Kosher one.  Thus, if a result of an accident, a "denatured" product could indeed be used, but it is problematic to make this happen intentionally.  So a plant carrying supervision could well fall into this category of intentionally making Unkosher Products Kosher.

On the one hand, the leading rabbinic authorities in North America EG R Moshe Feinstein, have opposed using Gelatin derived from Non-Kosher sources. On the other hand, many mainstream rabbis in Israel are inclined to permit it.

Google can be a helpful resource because many articles have been written on this very topic:

1

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_gelatin_kosher#page2

«Normally Gelatin is not considered Kosher but certain Kosher companies produce specially made Kosher 

Gelatin.According to Rabbi Dr. David Sheinkopf, Gelatin IS kosher. »

2

Gelatin
http://users.rcn.com/sue.interport/food/gelatin.html

«How is gelatin made?

"The production of the gelatin starts w/refinement of collagen-bearing tissues of ANY ANIMAL that has raised and slaughtered for food purposes. ....These materials are carefully soaked in alkalies and/or acids and washed in clean water to remove almost all non-collagen constituents, including meat. During this soaking period the collagen is converted to gelatin. The treated materials are then cooked gently in pure water to extract the gelatin, which is further refined by filtration....(Contrary to common belief, gelatin is not manufactured from horns or hooves or meat of animals, for these do not contain the necessary collagen).

"It is interesting to note that during manufacture of gelatin, chemical changes take place so that, in the final gelatin product, the composition and identity of the orignal material is completely eliminated. Because of this, gelatin is not considered a meat food product by the United States government..."»

Shach and Taz

Despite a physical and historical "Nim'nu v'Gamru"
Favoring the Taz over the Shach
Over Time, "Evolution" favored the Shach over the Taz

«Segal also authored responsa which, though sometimes quoted from the manuscripts, were never published. He and Shabbethai Kohen (the ShaK) are among the greatest halakhic authorities among the Acharonim. In 1683, the Council of Four Lands declared that the authority of the Taz should be considered greater than that of the ShaK, but later the ShaK gained more and more in authority.»

David HaLevi Segal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David ben Shemu'el ha-Levi


Best Regards,
RRW

B'rachot in Dispute - Introduction

BE"H I am planning a series in 3 parts or more on various B'rachot that are debated or subject to Halachic controversy.

Part 1 - An outline List of Disputed B'rachot according to several categories. This list may grow due to feedback

Part 2 - Mar'eh M'komot in Halachic literature that discuss these cases. This may be the largest component

Part 3 - Analyzing the sources and categories, especially inductively, to find common underlying dynamics that trigger such disputes.

Best Regards,
RRW

Each River and its Channel: Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy

«"Each River and its Channel": Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy
A reply to Rabbi Aryeh Frimer, "The Wrong Changes in Jewish Liturgy"
Guest post by R. Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish

Rabbi Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish is a graduate and musmakh of Yeshiva University who received a Ph.D. in Jewish Philosophy from the University of Haifa. He teaches adult Jewish education in a number of frameworks including soldiers in the IDF's "Nativ" course, the Hebrew University's Gandel Program, and the International School at the University of Haifa. He is the author of Kavvana: Directing the Heart in Jewish Prayer (1997) and The Book of Abraham: Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran and the School of Rabbenu Nissim Gerondi (currently being published online). This essay is available under the CC-BY-SA license; attribution should point to the post at the Hirhurim blog. A continually updated and corrected version is available 

*****

Each River and its Channel: »
R. Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish

«C. A Spectrum of Opinion
Among the Sephardic rishonim there were also compromise positions. The Ra'ah leaned towards the idea that Ḥazal actually composed a text, but took that historical theory in a different practical direction by suggesting that Ḥazal had no problem with their text being changed, including major changes, as long as those changes didn't become permanent ones in every prayer. Adding piyyutim is permitted precisely because they are not added every day.[6] The Ritva cited the Ra'ah alongside the Rashba.
Far from being the view of "a few rishonim" who argued with the Rambam as Rabbi Frimer would have it,[7] the Rashba's flexible view of both history and halakhah was a popular Sephardic one, echoed by the Abudarham[8] and adopted with some modifications[9] by the Rashbaẓ (a Spanish exile who became the greatest posek of North Africa and an important authority for the author of the Shulḥan Arukh). Furthermore, if we take the compromise positions into account, then the Rashba's basic overall conclusion about the legitimacy of making major changes within the blessings was shared not only by the much earlier ge'onim, but also by the vast majority of rishonim in Spain, North Africa, Provence and Ashkenaz, including a great many that it is impossible to analyze here. In Spain: Abudarham, Rabbenu Yonah (on Alfasi Berakhot 5b), Rashba, Ritva, Ra'ah, Ran,[10] and Rashbaẓ. In North Africa: Rabbenu Hannanel and Rashbaẓ (as previously). In Provence: Ra'avad (quoted in the Tur and Shiltei Gibborim A on Alfasi Berakhot 5a) and Meiri.
In Ashkenaz the discussion began with Rashi's interpretation of Mishnah Berakhot 1:4 (11a), which was ambigious. It seemed to pose a theoretical problem for major additions like piyyutim (even though I am unaware of any explicit evidence that Rashi actually opposed them).[11] According to the Meiri's interpretation of Rashi, it is forbidden to add new topics to blessings, which would exclude major piyyutim but permit modest changes. Alternatively, the Ra'ah followed Rashi in his interpretation of the mishnah, explaining "long" and "short" in terms of the length of the text, but permitted any change that was not permanent (see above). Most influential, however, was Rabbenu's Tam's far more lenient interpretation (rejecting Rashi), which was cited widely and approvingly among the ba`alei ha-tosafot (Berakhot 11a), Hagahot Maimoniyyot (on Hilkhot Tefillah 6:3[3]), and many other Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz (and even elsewhere such as by Rabbenu Yonah and the Meiri).
An important exception was the Rosh, who is quoted by his son in the Tur (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68) as having recommended the elimination of piyyutim in the blessings ("for it causes [people] to interrupt through useless talk about frivolities, and also Rabbenu Tam's explanation that he gave to justify the custom is not correct in my eyes"). But elsewhere (on Berakhot 34a and cited in Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 112) the Rosh explicitly accepted the practice based on standard justifications without a word of criticism.
Indeed, Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68 is highly unusual in its emphasis. As such, it is probably the best possible example of the exact halakhic attitude that Rabbi Frimer emphasized in his article. It begins with a lengthy citation of the Ramah, who described his displeasure with piyyutim and his unfortunate inability to eliminate them, followed by the Rambam. The Tur then continued by pointing out the prevalence of the custom, Rabbenu Tam's "forced interpretation" (daḥak lefaresh) in order to uphold it, and concluded with his father's recommendation to abolish it.
However, Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68 is not in any way representative of the general opinion in Ashkenaz or elsewhere, neither in its own time nor later. The Baḥ on the Tur responded passionately in favor of the traditional Ashkenazic opinion. The Levush is notable for his succinct summary of the halakhic situation in his time, both in terms of the principles and the practical reality; he remarked, "Nahara nahara u-fashteih [Each river and its channel]: Where the custom is [to say piyyutim] then that is the custom, and where the custom is not to say them then that is the custom, for each of the two opinions has authorities to rely upon."
D. Practical Halakhah and Halakhic Attitudes
Rabbi Frimer is quite right to say that it is wrong to tamper with the text of blessings according to the Rambam and that the Shulḥan Arukh accepted this position (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68), apparently because it was shared by the Rambam and the Rosh.[12] However, it is equally correct that to make changes in blessings is fully permissible according to the Rashba and many others (actually the vast majority of rishonim), and that the Rashba's position was adopted by the Rema.[13] What I find lacking in the Ḥakirah article is that it heavily documents and emphasizes just one sliver out of a very wide spectrum[14] while largely ignoring the rest. It also errs by turning the Rambam's attitude into a prism through which alternative opinions are viewed, in the sense that they must be assumed to have allowed piyyutim only for exceptional reasons, or only allowed piyyutim and nothing else.
Rabbi Frimer argues with passion that the position of the Rashba and the Rema is utterly irrelevant to contemporary changes because it was an exception made by the rishonim for piyyutim alone, and only because their recitation was already such an entrenched and highly revered custom. If correct, that would seem to settle the issue once and for all.»

Each River and its Channel: Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy | Hirhurim – Torah Musings



Best Regards,
RRW

Hilchot K'ri'at Sh'ma SA O"Ch 73:3,4

See
SA O"Ch 73:3,4;
MB there, especially #9.

Would these rules regarding sleeping with children, or with another's children, still fly today?

Best Regards,
RRW

Hair Covering, R MJ Broyde and Dialogue

Originally published 8/15/11, 7:06 pm.

Is This Really Dialogue? | Hirhurim – Torah Musings
------------------

My utterly simplistic take is

1) that HEAD covering is Dat Moshe [because it says "ufara et ROSHAH"]

But that

2) Covering other Hair is dat Yehudit, and how much hair may be exposed or must be covered would be subjective


Shalom,
RRW

R Jachter: The Parameters of Kol Isha

Originally published 8/1/11, 10:24 am.
The Parameters of Kol Isha

Comment:
R Jachter's structure is the best I've seen since the Beit Yosef in presenting the various sides of a given issue.

Shalom,
RRW

Reactions to My Hypothesis re: S'fira

Originally published 7/31/11, 1:47 pm.
It was interesting to observe the various reactions to my hypothesis of  "s'fira as quasi hol hamoed."

Some "Right Wingers" (?) seemed to pick up [correctly] that this would lead to kullot re: music, etc.

What Left Wingers seem to miss was a chance to attack this by saying: If 49 days are a quasi hol hamoed then weddings and haircuts should be assur for the entire 49 days - instead of only 33!?

Ein hachi nami. My sheetah comes down l'kulla on some aspects and l'humra on others!

"How about that!" - Mel Allen

This is somewhat akin to RYDS Z"L who was lenient on some forms of music during s'fira and strict on attending a baseball game!

RMF Z"L was also at times meikil at times Machmir.. YBL"Ch R J Weiss, my Y"D rebbe dismissed poskim as falling into either category categorically. [I'm not sure I concur 100% of the time, nevertheless that IS often the case]


"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." - Paul Simon

I frequently find that many reactions often filter via a pre-conceived lens w/o realizing that a given sheetah may not be humra or kula, just different, etc.

Story 1
One Friday Night I visited a choveir who is no meikil, nevertheless he was quite open-minded to my hypothesis. Besides the Ramban, he said that the P'sikta takes this approach. I later saw it in the YU publication on that topic.

True Some Poskim DO tend to be meikil or machmir, but others are "eclectic" and still others may be "all over the place". - as a friend privately described himself to me
--------------------

Story 2
One town had 2 Orthodox shuls.
A with a high mechitzah
B with "3-way" seating

Yet the Rabbi of A opened his parking lot on Shabbos, while the Rabbi of B locked his up!

And, to an extent, EACH Rabbi thought he was "frummer"

Shalom,
RRW

Halachic Dispute in Sexual Abuse Cases?

Originally published 7/24/11, 5:53 pm.
I recently received an email that directed me to the Survivors for Justice site, which presented what would seem to be the position of R. Shmuel Kamenetsky and the Agudah that one must check with a rabbi before reporting child abuse to the authorities.
 In response, SFJ attacks the Agudah position and calls upon its lay and rabbinic leadership to retract it. In this regard, they further quote Rav Elyashav who states that one must report abusers to the authorities.

Something, though, did not make sense. In the first place, on sensitive matters of this nature, the charedi world is usually very cautious about presenting disagreements. I further found it difficult to believe that the Agudah would advocate any position contrary to R. Elyashav. I then listened to the recording that SFJ had of R. Kamenetsky's words.

What I heard R. Kamenetsky say was somewhat different than the way it was reported. True, he did say that a person should consult a rav but the tone was, in my opinion, somewhat different. He also seemed to make some comment about those under a legal obligation to report, implying that they had to follow the law to report. It would seem that R. Kamenetsky was simply saying that one, before reporting, should practice some introspection and make sure that there indeed was a basis for reporting any incident to the authorities.
There is no doubt that an abuser must be reported but there would also seem to be an obligation to ensure that the one you are accusing is actually worthy of the accusation. Don't just go on hearsay. Speak to a rav -- or another intelligent person -- to think about it. There is no doubt that if you have clear evidence, you have to go to the police.
The problem is when you have to make a judgement call in the situation -- of course you have to report an abuser but make sure to the best of your ability that you are not reporting an innocent man. Whether R. Kamenetsky used the term rav or not, that seemed to be what he was saying.

And it also seemed to be what R. Elyashav was also saying. There was no real machloket. The fact is that this really is a sensitive issue -- and I pray that I never have to be in a situation where I would have to make such a judgement call. The strange thing is that I actually would also call some other rabbonim -- not to get permission but to talk it out.
I, of course, would not want to let an abuser escape but I would also not want to accuse an innocent person. Would I apply the standard to the secular criminal system -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly not, but I would think about. And that is all that I think is really being said.

But then why all the rhetoric? It would seem that this simple understanding of the words of poskim is not the general understanding -- and I must wonder why not? It seems somewhat sensible. The problem is the language that is used and the further reaction that is found in the response to this language.
The statement consult a rav is not understood to simply mean -- consult a rav . Talk about it with somewhat whom you respect, who can help you further contemplate what to do honestly, sensitively and intellectually. On one side, it is understood to mean -- let someone else make your decision. And on the other side, the reaction is: no I can make my own decision.
No doubt SFJ is responding to all those who yell that someone has to consult a rav before going to the police within a declaration of don't make your own decision. In turn, though, it seems to be responding with another simple declaration -- make your own decision.

Why can't we just get together on this and simply put out a call to THINK. We should just want to make sure that if we are accusing someone of this crime, there is a basis. It should not be just gossip. On the other hand, we must take very seriously the consequences of not reporting some who is an abuser.
Maybe it really is not a bad idea to consult a rav -- after all isn't a rav supposed to be a wise person who can help you in a decision making process of this nature.
Of course, if the answer is so obvious (do you ask a rav if you can eat a Big Mac?), then there is no reason to consult a rav. But a little bit of self-doubt when appropriate would make sense.

That seems to be all that is really going on here. So why does it not seem to come out like that?
It really is a sad statement on how we view rabbanim for we do not see them anymore as wise people who can assist us in our contemplation of issues. That is really sad -- and can only lead to greater problems.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Resolute against Child Abuse

Originally published 7/24/11, 11:25 am.
RCA:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105544

Agudah:
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/22/agudath-israel-statement-on-reporting-suspicions-of-child-abuse/

Shalom,
RRW

M'zuzah on a Kosher Restaurant

Originally published 7/24/11, 11:09 am.
I work in a Glatt Kosher OK certified restaurant. Every so often people ask me: "where is the m'zuzah?"

I tell them that the restaurant is NOT owned by Jews. I'm not certain, but it might even be assur to put up a m'zuzah on a non-Jewish establishment. M'zuzot on a non-Jewish owned location would be misleading; it may also be subject to defilement, EG when the business closes. See Rema Y"D Hilchot M'zuzah 286:1, 291:2

Shalom,
RRW

Mussar: "Thrills" and Mitzideinu from Hovot Halvavot

Originally published 7/2/11, 10:08 pm.
Does the Torah allow for recreational activities that threaten life and Limb?

Lich'ora from the Mitzvah of "v'nishmarten m'od et Nafshoteichem" it would follow that this is a no-no.

For more on the Hashqafa side of this - see Hovot Halvavot Shaar Habbitachon ch. 4 about our responsibilites Mitzideinu to avoid reckless behaviour despite that Hashem has already determined the length of our lives [Lev Tov edition pp. 351-2]

Shalom,
RRW

Aveilut During Sefirah - How Widespread?

Originally posted 6/27/11, 8:46 pm.
I have just researched Minhag Teiman a bit - and while I did not get all the details - I did finally just confirm with a Teimani Talmid Hacham: that Teimanim do indeed observe a form of Aveilut during Sefirah

He also mentioned their minhag to count Sefirah using Aramaic.

This means that Aveilut in Sefirah, that it is even more widely "nispasheit" than, for example, the restrictions of meat and wine during Hodesh Av, since Teimanim only restrict themselves on Erev Tisha b'av after Hatzot.

A few comments:

A. Both The Teimani and the S'phardic practices seem to be unrelated to the Crusades

B. While The Narrative from the Talmud regarding Talmidei R Akiva probably did not trigger this Minhag immediately, nevertheless,  it seems to have taken hold in East-West Ashk'naz, S'pharad and Teiman, albeit the severity may differ as well as the specific days selected

C. My hypothesis* about Hol Hamoed might explain some of this widespread observance [But it also might not! LOL].

-----------------

* That is the Minhag to refrain from Nissuin and Tisporet and some m'lachah was originally triggered by Hol haMoed first, and later morphed to Aveilut - probably due to the Crusades.


Shalom,
RRW

The BIC Korach II:1, T'imat K'feila

Originally published 6/24/11, 3:23 pm.
A while back I had to disabuse my students of the popular - but highly oversimplified notion - that Ashkenazim ALWAYS follow Rema and that Sephardim ALWAYS follow the m'chabeir! In the real world, there is far more gray area ambiguity in these matters for simplified "slogans". Rather these rules of thumb are but defaults and are not absolutes.
------------------
Pursuant to the above -
The Ben Ish Chai Korach 2nd Year s'if 1 says that - despite that the M'chabeir in SA-YD 98 relies upon T'imat "Eino-Yehudi", and that the Minhag [in Baghdad anyway] follows the Rema to NOT allow for this and to use shishim only
Is this the common prevailing Minhag amongst S'phardim and Eidot Mizrach today to NOT rely upon T'imat K'feila?
Note - I was recently informed that this IS the case in some communities. Can anyone confirm one way or the other with further examples?

Shalom,
RRW