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 

Non-Fasting on Fast Days

Here is a real-life scenario that sometimes comes up:

Patient and Doctor [physician]

Patient: Doctor, With my condition X, may I fast on Fast Days?

Doctor: Yes, you need not eat - provided that you drink water. You cannot afford to get dehydrated...

Patient: Thank you, but as you may not know, the Halachah requires * refraining from water, too.


Now the Patient and his Rabbi

Patient: the Doctor says I need not eat on Fast Days, but that I must drink water.

Rabbi: Do what you can. Refrain from eating, and drink only as much water as needed so as to avoid damaging your health.

-------------------------------------
* Assuming a healthy person. People with illness may be exempt from fasting on several of these fasts...


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

Question:

When the patient drinks water as above, is this water:

A. Food? And therefore the Patient is deemed as NOT fasting ...

Or

B. Medicine? The patient is indeed fasting as much as he physically can, and so is deemed a "faster".

The nafqa mina could be with regards to receiving an aliyah.
Generally, we avoid giving an aliyah to a "non-faster."


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

Answer:
I favor B. To my point of view, in this case - water is his form of medication. And so he does observe the fast by eliminating all food and any excess liquid.


Best Regards,
RRW

Agunah Prevention - Be Part of the Solution III

«Indifference, apathy or not wanting to get involved are not Jewish concepts, particularly as they relate to those suffering from injustice. In many places the Torah explicitly calls upon us to protect, defend, and support the almanah, the widow. Rabbi Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg, author of the Ksav V'Kabbalah (Parshas Mishpatim) explains that the Torah doesn't limit this mitzvah to the widow, but expects it regarding all those who are vulnerable and tormented within our community. He explains that the world "almanah" comes from al-manah, missing a portion. The almanah is simply a symbol of those that are incomplete, missing something in their lives. Our mandate and our mission must be to protect and support them.

It is in this spirit that the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the professional organization of over 1,000 Orthodox Rabbis in North America, held a Yom Iyun this week, a day of study regarding the plight of Agunos. The day began with a talk by Rav Herschel Schachter on the Halachic parameters of applying social pressure to encourage a man to give his wife a Get. Rav Schachter serves as the Posek of ORA and has been courageously vocal and instrumental in advocating on behalf of women being held hostage by their husbands.»

Be Part of the Solution - Agunah Prevention



Best Regards,
RRW

On Following a Poseik

Does anyone here, or anyone you know, follow a single, given Poseik 100% of the time?

Best Regards,
RRW

A Sarah by any Other Name

Yo'etzet?
Rabbanit?
Maharat?
Rabbah?

See for yourself...

Best Regards,
RW

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..."»

The Times they are a-Changing - Orthodox Shul opens door to Female Spiritual Leader

«"In contemporary modern Orthodox synagogues, women fill many roles that would have been unheard of just a few short decades ago," Rabbi Barry Freundel of Orthodox Kesher Israel Congregation, in Washington, said in a statement. "Women speak from the pulpit (offer divrei Torah), teach any and all Jewish subjects, respond to questions of Jewish law from within our sacred sources, provide pastoral guidance to congregants, serve in leadership capacities up to and including synagogue president and more. Even though some of these remain somewhat controversial, there is a strong body of Orthodox rabbinic opinion that supports and encourages these developments. Some synagogues who are able to do so have employed women in positions whose job descriptions include many, if not all, of these items. Nonetheless the Rabbinical Council of America, the world's largest Orthodox rabbinical organization has publicly indicated that ordaining a woman or having her serve in a position that reflects ordination is beyond the legitimate halachic (Jewish legal) limits of our tradition (mesorah)."»

Orthodox shul opens door to female spiritual leader -
Washington Jewish Week - Online Edition - Rockville, MD
http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=133&SubSectionID=273&ArticleID=19389


Best Regards,
RRW

God Included Women at Sinai

Originally published 5/31/13, 11:20 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
God included women at Sinai - The Jewish Standard
http://www.jstandard.com/content/item/god_included_women_at_sinai/27318


A Reader Responds:

Dear Editor:

The Author's logic escapes me, because the arguments appear to be inconsistent.

1. She invokes the Authority of Sinai
2. She Claims that Sinai empowered women with the right to the Torah...

So far - no problem

However addressing #1
As a professed JTS graduate, what kind of Authority from Sinai is there nowadays to confer such an absolute right?

#2. The Power conferred to women at Sinai WAS separate but equal! The paradigm for that was Moses and Miriam doing separate but equal Sheerot at the Yam Suf. To then revise that Power using Modern Sensibilities seems somehow eclectic or inconsistent.

To Summarize, if Sinai empowered women, it did so on its own terms. If you wish to invoke Modern Social Correctness, then please leave Sinai out of the discussion.

A Concerned Reader
Teaneck, NJ

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

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

Counterfeiter, Rodeif, Hatra'ah

Originally published 8/17/11, 7:19 pm.
Kitzur SA 184:9
Based upon Rema Cho"M 388:11

Paraphrasing Goldin Translation

«A person who is engaged in counterfeiting money ... Is a "rodeif" ... And should be warned to desist from his practice [lest he jeopardize the community]»

Q1 : If the counterfeiter is indeed deemed a rodeif, why should he even get hatra'ah? What are the Rema and the Kitzur SA teaching us?

Note: Rema adds "v'im eino mashgi'ach" , so we expect that sometimes the counterfeiter will heed that warning.

Q2: Do we have sources re: Pinchas and Zimri? IOW did Pinchas warn Zimri first?

Shalom,
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

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

DSK

Originally published 7/7/11, 1:49 pm.
Maybe this is just so obvious to everyone and that is why no one is mentioning it but there is a subtle moral yardstick (or lack of moral yardstick) that is accompanying the Strauss-Kahn matter that it is important to recognize.

The issue seems to be only if he attacked this woman or not but not that there was sexual contact between the two. There seems to be pretty good evidence that there was. Yet, we are seeing DSK's wife standing beside him -- they held hands as they left the courtroom -- and the discussion in France about whether he should run for President or not seems to only focus on the issue of rape. It seems that no cares, not even his wife, if he committed adultery.

Compare this to Clinton and while he escaped any consequences, his actions still led to impeachment. No one expected Hillary to immediately be lovey-dovey with him either although now, at least publicly, she seems to have forgiven him. But there was an expectation that he needed to be forgiven by his wife. And, of course, the Terminator is being sued for divorce by his wife, so there seems to be at least some bastions of marriage morality. But DSK seems to be only under scrutiny for sexual assault -- not his sexual morality.
Is this a reflection of French culture and that is why its not a factor in his bid for that country's Presidency? Or does it reflect something much more and touches upon North American society? While it is to be expected that Maria would be angry at Arnold's indiscretions are we, as a society, also equally at home with DSK's wife seemingly acceptance of her husband's indiscretions? And what does this say about the world we live in?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

When Political Correctness Overtakes Torah Values

Originally published 6/30/11, 1:09 pm.
Anti-circumcision call gets London Jewish rep. fired
--------------------

Perhaps the subject of a new poll would be
"how many of society's values are good to incorporate into a Torah Community?"

Shalom,
RRW

Fungibility of Z'chut and T'nai Kahal

Originally published 6/17/11, 5:37 pm.
I first encountered this in the Hayyei Adam part 1 17:35 regarding exclusive z'chut to build a Beit Midrash. The HA there cites his source as Ta"z 11 - see below.

HA: If the z'chut is given as an honor, he may not sell it
However, If he paid for it, he may in turn sell it.
Note - No discussion is made here re: if someone were to thwart this z'chut and thwart the agreement. Recourse apparently would be an issue in Choshen Mishpat
Bottom line - we see an intangible right has market value under certain conditions. Here the condition seems to be tied to an investment.

Additional sources:

See SA O"Ch 153:12
Baer Hetev 22 quoting Ta"z 11
MB 76 first quoting the L'vush then the aforementioned Ta"z

Also note that as Per MB there are strings attached to the sale of the z'chut. It's not unconditionally fungible rather "davka l'hagun kamohu."

This seems to imply that a seller - even though he sells something- may reserve rights regarding subsequent sales. In this case, it seems that either public or Halachic interest creates this reservation, and NOT the seller's stipulation.

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

Questions:

1. Is the exclusive right to Publish analogous to the exclusive right to Build?

EG
A. Could a Rav Halachically sell exclusive publication rights? Let's say Rav Breuer approaches Philip Feldheim and offers him exclusive rights to PUBLISH his Hiddushei Torah?

B Could Feldheim in turn sell that right?

C. Similarly, could a Kahal Halachically sell exclusive its publication rights to its "Pinkas"?

Shalom,
RRW

The Problem: Is it Stringency or Simplicity?

Originally published 6/15/11, 10:39 am.
Recently, I was directed to an article on the Jewish Ideas and Ideals website by Rabbi Alan Yuter on Sefirat HaOmer and the minhag of practicing some form of aveilut during intervals of this time period.
Rabbi Yuter wrote the piece  in response to a statement by a leading Rosh Yeshiva that critiqued various new halachic innovations, perceived by individuals as meeting the technical requirements of the law but, in this Rosh Yeshiva's assessment, clearly did not meet its spirit. His argument, further, was that, in many cases, regardless of the attitude of the community at large, they also did not even meet the technical requirements.
As an example of this, he focused on the development of 'voice only' musical tapes marketed as permitted during Sefirah since there are no musical instruments in the arrangement. The very fact that people would even consider listening to such tapes during Sefirah, displayed to this Rosh Yeshiva the weakness of people wishing to circumvent the law. It seems his argument further was that listening to such tapes during Sefirah also violated the technical requirements of the halacha. In any event, "many of the gedolei rabbonim [great rabbis]  have ruled that one should not listen to this type of music during Sefirahand The Three Weeks" and this is what the community should implement.

In response, Rabbi Yuter contended that this was, in fact, a gross simplification of the spirit of the law and also its technical requirements. Given the relatively recent development of this prohibition on music during Sefirah itself , especially in tape form, such a hard line view as presented in this statement, he found, in itself, to be problematic.
While Rabbi Yuter's presentation was technically sound in many ways, I began to wonder what it was in this Rosh Yeshiva's statement that really bothered him. Was it that this Rosh Yeshiva was overly stringent or overly simple?

There is an interesting aspect to the split that seems to be developing within the Orthodox world. In the minds of those who, let us say, are more to the left of the spectrum, those that maintain more stringent positions are also perceived to be more dogmatic. They, in turn, while also advocating for more lenient positions also define themselves as more intellectually critical.
There is actually some truth to this assertion for the argument for leniency is often built on a recognition of disagreement, machloket, in the fabric of Halacha, a fact that clearly points to the inherent intellectual nature of it. These assertions, though, are much more rigid then they need be or even should be. There is, in fact, great sadness in this formulation of distinction in the two camps, that stringency is immediately associated with dogmatism and that leniency is presented as inherently associated with intellectual fortitude.
The question, though, is not whether this need be. This I would contend is obviously not so. The model of Beit Shammai should also be in our mind; they were deemed to be the more intellectually deeper as well as the more stringent.The question, though is: why is this so?

I obviously touched upon one reason for this. Dogmatism offers support to the more stringent position while recognition of divergent viewpoints, reflecting the more intellectual nature of Torah, offers support for the more lenient.
The further question, though, is: which is the more dominant motivation. Do we desire leniency (and that is not necessarily bad, but that is for a different discussion) and such embrace greater intellectual understanding? Or is it that we wish to meet higher intellectual standards which inevitably lead to greater leniency because of the greater understanding of possibilities?

A similar question I do not believe could be asked concerning the stringent/dogmatic side. I don't think anyone would contend that the motivation is really dogmatism and thus they are more stringent. The very fact that often proponents of such views try to claim that they are not being dogmatic would seem to support a contention that the drive is not for dogmatism, at least on a conscious level. There may, though, be a drive for simplicity resulting in a desire for clear answers, a drive for that leading to the more stringent view. This perhaps should be considered a possibility.
In fact, though, arguing that there is a drive for stringency leading to a desire for greater simplicity would also seem to be a problem. Of course, we see with the further embracing of chumrot that there may, in fact, be somewhat of a drive for greater stringency -- for various ancillary reasons -- but I think that the greater drive is not stringency but rather consistency and tradition. I think that we could easily contend that the psychological motivation of this camp -- what we have termed the stringent/dogmatic side -- is actually pretty easy to define.
There is a desire for a specific answer deemed to be clearly correct and this, inevitably, must lead to dogmatism. This is one side of the present frum world.

It is the intellectual/lenient world that raises the greater question of what is the motivation. Is it, bluntly, a disgust with dogmatism or a desire for leniency? With the disgust for dogmatism we can include an anger at the misrepresentation of truth and/or the authenticity and value of Torah study, limud haTorah. This drive, though, as mentioned above, does not necessarily have to lead to leniency. (I guess we should also have noted that dogmatism does not always have to lead to stringency. There are dogmatic liberals. The final point about dogmatism, though, is that it does necessarily lead to a perception of solitary answers.)
What is happening, though, is that it is often being presented in a matter that it does. This is becoming the exact problem. I have no way of knowing, bluntly, the answer to the above question. What essentially bothers me is that a perception of an inherent link between leniency and intellectual honesty is developing -- and this has its own problems and dishonesty.

I guess this specifically bothers me because of its effect on Nishma. Its becoming that if you project yourself as analytical and thoughtful -- specifically in the presentation of spectrum of opinions -- it becoming assumed that your real motivation is leniency. Nishma, as such, is often labelled in this camp while it definitely is not.
This is not to say that it is in the stringent/traditional camp either. Its interest is solely the veracity of limud haTorah. It has no agenda aside from thought. Given the climate of our present world, this is hard for anyone to imagine. Presenting spectrum -- you must be to the left.

And then there is the other side of this problem -- if you are to the left, i.e. lenient, the assumption is that you must be intellectual. This further leads to the portrayal of advocates of left positions as specifically intellectual and/or intellectually motivated. And this further keeps the general fallacy in our world continuing.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Mussar: On a Different Form of "Texting"

Originally posted 6/4/11, 9:53 pm. Second link no longer works.
From R Micha. Berger - esteemed moderator of the Avodah List
First see this.

" This brings up the meta-issue of how halakhah works. And therefore gives me an opening to re-post what I wrote on the 5 Towns Jewish Times site and RDE's blog.
Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes on 5TJT
<http://www.5tjt.com/international-news/10569-conflicting-kashrus-rulings-translated>
which opens:
So what do you do when you open up the newspaper and find two diametrically opposed Kashrus rulings and letters from leading Poskim? The newspaper was Wednesday's issue of the HaModiah and the two ads appear on pages D5 and D14 respectively.
That paragraph frankly scared me.
What a sad comment on the fall of normative halachic process! We apparently have gotten so used to deciding things for ourselves based on English popularizations of the halakhah that the obvious answer is missing. You aren't supposed to decide halakhah from letters in the newspaper. Halakhah is detemined by consensus, not majority. You don't need to find
the one true halakhah -- if there are still conflicting letters from gedolei haposeqim, there isn't one. (And even that's unclear, one of the signatores is also on record refusing to pasqen about anasakis.) So what do you do?
Go to your own poseiq! Yes, that's right, Judaism is supposed to be based on a personal relationship with one's mentor. You get a pesaq from someone whose path in Torah observance is similar to yours, who you know, and who knows you well enough to know where you are holding and what you're capable of.
Pesaqim in newspapers? It just doesn't work that way. The ads have value, informing LORs that there is an issue to research. But you can't decide halakhah for yourself from newspaper ads!
We have become neo-Karaites, we turn to texts. No concept of the value of shimush rabbanim -- the quality that recommended Yehoshua as Moshe's successor and the loss of which created such doubt and confusion in the days of Batei Hillel veShammai. Judaism is supposed to be a living tradition; Oral Torah is after all, oral. "Asei lekha rav"!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha»

RRW comments:

I have even found such people that have told me that they would trust what's written in a sefer of R Moshe over what R Moshe said to them in person!
Sometimes I wonder if these people really want to do away with Rabbis and Communities and live on a desert island and have a Shas or Shulchan Aruch parachuted from Heaven and call THAT Torah sheb'al Peh!

Well, said R Berger

Shalom,
RRW

Is Hadash Assur Min Hatorah? 1 - Sheitels

Originally published on 5/20/11, 12:42 pm.
Two Hundred years ago, wearing a Wig or Peruke was a radical innovation to cover women's hair. Many posqim opposed it - can hair be a mafsik for other hair?
Now sheitels are standard. And the fact that they are highly attractive does not seem to bother anyone.
What changed? What makes it so kosher nowadays, that it would seem that no frum married woman would leave home without it?

Shalom,
RRW

What is the Eariest Source? - Listening to Music During Sefirah

Originally published 5/6/11, 11:40 am.
We all KNOW it's ASSUR

Or is it?

Music During Sefira | Hirhurim – Torah Musings

Questions:
A. Could Yom Ho'atzmaut be exempted from this prohibition?

B. Could Yom Yerushalayim be exempted?

C. What about s'machot such as Bar Mitzvah or a Brit Milah?

Shalom,
RRW