Category: Halacha

This section of Shul Chronicles focuses on practical and historical issues in Halacha, including family law, minhag, contemporary halachic debate, and communal practice.

  • Purim That Falls Erev Shabbos

    Purim That Falls Erev Shabbos

    When To Eat The Seudah…and More

    What followed was a series of guidelines for the Purim seudah when Purim falls on a Friday.

    But first, some background is in order.

    The Shulchan Aruch forbids one to eat a full meal on Erev Shabbos. Although regular daily meals such as breakfast are fine, once we get to the ninth halachic hour of the day, even those would be forbidden. The purpose, of course, is to make sure we enter Shabbos with anticipation and a healthy appetite.

    Although having a regular lunch, even with bread, is permissible, some poskim posit that in the short winter months, one must be careful not to eat too much even before the ninth hour. The Aruch Hashulchan states that on these very early Shabbosos, one should not have bread at all on Friday and should simply “taste” samplings of food throughout the day. Others are only careful on these early Shabbosos not to wash over bread past midday.

    In fact, the Shulchan Aruch records that some anshei maaseh, very conscientious people, used to fast every Friday in order to enter Shabbos in a state of hunger. Of course, this is not our practice since fasting causes fatigue and irritability (although we do fast when Asarah B’Teves falls on a Friday; all sources above from siman 249).

    But what if there is an occasion for a seudas mitzvah on Friday? The Shulchan Aruch states that one should not even make a wedding feast on Erev Shabbos.

    The poskim explain that the example of a wedding was chosen because it isn’t necessary to get married on a Friday. But if, say, a bris or a pidyon haben—which are mandated by halachah—falls on Erev Shabbos, a seudas mitzvah would be allowed. Even in such cases, however, the poskim lay out many rules and suggestions, such as having the meal as early in the day as possible and not inviting too many guests.

    These concerns are so important that according to some, one must be mindful on the first day of a Yom Tov not to finish the meal so late that he will ruin his appetite for that night’s seudah (Magen Avraham; cf. Biur Halachah 429, but see Mishnah Brurah 471:16).

    With all this in mind, let’s explore best practices for an Erev Shabbos Purim.

    The Rema tells us in Hilchos Purim (695:2) that one may have a morning seudah on Purim even when it doesn’t fall on Erev Shabbos. Although that is not a time most people will choose to enjoy the simchah and achdus of this day, it might be a good idea this year. Indeed, that is the Rema’s opinion. It should be pointed out, however, that when he says “morning,” he does not mean breakfast, but rather, before halachic midday (around 1 p.m. in New York City).

    There is an additional benefit of having an earlier seudah, and that is the fact that too much drinking close to Shabbos risks destroying the Friday-night seudah.

    Along those lines, drinking at kiddush on a regular Shabbos morning has vexed many wives for years. Too often, by the time the husband returns from kiddush, he is tipsy or tired and winds up lying down, ruining the Shabbos meal for the entire family. This concern is mentioned explicitly by the Mishnah Brurah (249:14).

    Some minhagim allow for an Erev Shabbos Purim seudah up to the tenth hour of the day (around 4 p.m. in New York City).

    Of course, everyone should follow the minhag of his parents or rebbi, and in a case of b’di’eved he should speak to a rav.

    There is, however, one more minhag—combining the Purim seudah with the Friday-night seudah. For those who do not have this practice, it is not simple, and one who would like to do so must speak to his rav.

    The way this works is as follows: One has a late seudah before plag haminchah (around 4:30 p.m. NYC time), and at some point between plag and several minutes before sundown (around 6:50 p.m. NYC time) everyone accepts Shabbos—either verbally or by saying all of Kabbalas Shabbos. They would then make Kiddush and continue eating.

    On the one hand, this seems like a marvelous way of enjoying the Purim seudah without ruining the Shabbos meal—and in fact, there is evidence that some Rishonim kept this minhag (Meiri).

    However, there are a number of land mines to contend with.

    It is likely that when you recite Kiddush, will have to omit the brachah of Hagafen because you probably had wine during the Purim seudah.

    Lechem mishneh also becomes complex. Should the challahs be brought out before Kiddush is made, even though you already washed earlier for the Purim meal? Even if you do put out lechem mishneh, you would have to remember not to make a brachah on it but simply cut the challah after Kiddush (see siman 271 and Mishnah Brurah ad loc. 18). And you would have to make sure to eat a kezayis even if you already did so at the Purim seudah.

    This is not to mention questions about bentching, about the fact that Maariv must wait until after the seudah, and about how to do poress mateh—separating the two meals before Kiddush begins. Some say one can do this just by covering the challahs, but the Shulchan Aruch Harav says one must cover the entire table!

    In the end, here is what I wrote to my shul members.

    “We wish to enter Shabbos, which is holier than Purim, in a state of anticipation. It is best to eat the Purim meal earlier in the day, before midday (1:04 p.m. Queens time), thereby allowing hunger to set in before Shabbos. One can accomplish this by starting the meal and completing the majority of it by 1:04 p.m.

    “If this is not possible, or if one forgot to eat the seudah, then a later meal would be acceptable if it begins before 4:02 p.m. (Queens time). In such a case, one should strive to complete the majority of the meal by that time.

    “A rav should be consulted if a conflict with this 4:02 p.m. time frame is known in advance or arises.

    “There is a rare custom to combine a late-day Purim meal with the Friday-night Shabbos seudah (with a break in between). For those whose parents or rebbeim follow this view, a rav should be consulted about how best to navigate the many issues that arise (e.g., how and when to daven Maariv, when to make Kiddush, and when to bentch).

    “May we soon celebrate Purim in the era of Moshiach. Wishing everyone a freilichen Purim!”

    I am extending that brachah to all of you as well! ●

  • The Many Mysteries – and Dilemmas – of the ‘Weekly Parsha’

    The Many Mysteries – and Dilemmas – of the ‘Weekly Parsha’

    Why Do We Combine Only Certain Parshios?

    Who Invented, Named,& Separated the “Parshios HaShevua“?

    Visiting Eretz Yisroel When They Are A Week Ahead

    Why Do We Wait So Long To Re-Align With Eretz Yisroel?

    Why Is Our Siyum of Our Yearly Cycle On Shemini Atzeres and Not On Shavuos?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    A Merger Of Several Articles Published In AMI MAGAZINE in 2016, 2019, & 2026

    I. Parsha vs. Parsha

    A young member of my shul approached me during the simchas torah hakafos one year and asked, “Wouldn’t Shavuos be a more apt time to complete our siyum of the Torah?”

         An adult member overheard the question, and I could only guess he had been overwhelmed with the simcha of the day when he offered: “It’s because today is Simchas Torah! How could we not finish now! Imagine Simchas Torah without a siyum of the Torah!”

        As soon as he completed his ‘answer’, he realized he was in no state to offer teirutzim.

         Indeed, Simchas Torah is often misunderstood.

         The history behind how we came to commemorate the completion of the Torah on (the second day of) shemini atzeres is fascinating, beguiling,  and furnishes us with a unique opportunity to appreciate certain rudimentary arrangements of our Torah lives.

    • How old is this minhag of Simchas Torah?
    • Is not this siyum haTorah interfering with our separate Torah obligation of simchas yom tov (based on the rule, ‘ein ma’arvin simcha b’simcha‘, we don’t intermingle certain simchos)?
    • Why don’t we complete the Torah on a Shabbos, the day we had leined it until now?
    • Most saliently, who divided our parshios of the week into the names and partitions with which we are so familiar, and through which this special siyum was created?

          I once published a lengthy post titled Chapter and Verse, where we explained the halachic and hashkafic the Christian-introduced divisions of the ‘chapters/perakim’, as well as their dividing of sifrei melachim, shmuel, divrei hayamim and ezra, each, into two separate books; even naming the ‘second part’ of Ezra into a newly-named sefer called ‘nechemia’ (Cf. Sanhedrin 93b where chazal explain why Nechemia was not to have a sefer named for him!).

        Our mesorah already gave us divisions of our own, called ‘parshios’. These are not to be confused with what we colloquially call the ‘parshas hashavuah’. Rather, these mesorah ‘parshios’ are breaks/spaces found inside sifrei Torah and come to represent a new subject, event, or simply the pause Moshe was given when being taught by Hashem (see Rashi to Vayikra 1:1 with Toras Kohanim; neviim and kesuvim also have such breaks).  There are two types of such breaks/spaces in Torah: pesuchos (represented in most standard chumashim with a large letter pei), and setumos (represented in chumashim with a large letter samech).

    A Stumah: when the new section continues on the same line as the last, but with a space (of nine-letters);

    A Pesucha: where the new parsha begins on a new line, but with a space of the same size.

        These parshios are significant, and a sefer Torah without them, or where they are placed incorrectly, would be pasul.

         Many are already aware of this, and that our parshios hashavuah have nothing to do with the halachic concept of ‘parshios‘. In another post, I discussed the weeks known as ‘Shovavim’ (from shemos–mishpatim) and shared that the parshios hashavuah became universally adopted – along with a yearly Simchas Torah—only about 800 years ago (see megillah 29b and sofrim 16:10, with Rambam, hilchos tefillah 13:1).

          Furthermore, Rav Shlomo Luria (d. 1573) shares that for those in eretz yisroel who were observing a triennial cycle, Simchas Torah would be celebrated once every three-and-a-half years, and that this siyum would veer from city-to-city! (Yam Shel Shlomo, end of bava kama, kuntrus ‘chilukei denim bein bnei e’y u’vein bnei bavel’. See also Otzar Plios HaTorah, emor, p. 931)

    II. Blunders & Parsha Names

    Here is a ubiquitous example of how confusion regarding the above may even lead to real blunders:

       A well-known Rashi – and a favorite of children’s parsha sheets – is found in the beginning of ‘parshas’ Yisro. Rashi quotes a chazal listing Yisro’s many names and their meanings.

    “Yeser [to add]: as Yisro added a parsha of the Torah” (shemos, 18:1)

       This is often erroneously repeated as meaning that Yisro received the zechus to have this parshas hashavua named for him –parshas ‘Yisro’!

       This is a misconception. Rather, what chazal meant, is that Yisro’s urging of Moshe to set up court systems ‘shaped’ a new parsha/section/inyan/subject inside the Torah -along with its own breaks before and after it (setuma/pesucha), i.e. the ‘parsha’ of courts!

       Rebbeim certainly teach this accurately, yet some misunderstand or misremember their words, when in truth it is unlikely that Rashi even ever heard of ‘Parshas Yisro’ as we know it!

            There are more examples, but I trust that the reader now appreciates that this distinction between parsha and parsha is substantial.

    IIa. Parsha ‘Names’

           Some may now assume the other extreme: the parshios hashavuah, while wisely divided so as to complete the Torah once a year, are capricious in nature.

          Rav Tzadok Hakohen teaches that just as our parents gave us personal names – which form/describe our essence -so too the names we have given and accepted for the weekly parshios carry their essence (Resisei Layla, ois 44).

        In fact, the Chasam Sofer (Drashos, Sukkos, p.52; likuttim Tehillim, p. 157) teaches that one should look at the parshas hashevua to find the answer to personal life-questions. This is especially true of the aliya one may receive (see ‘Melech B’yofiuv’ p. 5). Amazingly, Rav Yair Chayim Bacharach (d. 1702) named his famous sefer ‘Chavos Yair’ based on an aliyah he received (Bamidbar, 32:41)!

            Metzorah, mattos, shemeni and more are not named for their first word (‘v’elah shemos’ is indeed how Rav Saadia Gaon referred to shemos), and these accepted names are to be deemed kodosh.

          While we do find some names of our current weekly parshios already in chazal (e.g. ‘kedoshim’ – see zevachim 28a), most names evolved over centuries, many in the days of the geonim (Rav Chaim Kinievsky, Derech Sicha, p. 3; see Yesodei Yeshurin, 4:363ff).

         In fact, we used to divide parshas mishpatim into two parshios on certain years, the latter half with its own name (see Sefer HaChinuch).

         There are some who posit, that our present-day parshios hashevuah were passed down from Moshe or Ezra, and were always seen as the optimal way to read the Torah (see Ohr Zarua, hilchos shabbos, siman 45, Meiri, Kiryas Sefer, maamer 5 perek 1, and Tanchuma to Ki Sisa 3; see also sefer ‘Toldos Simchas Torah’).

       Some go further, asserting that the triennial completion of the Torah was a temporary aberration (Rav Reuven Melech Schwartz, Yemei Shovavim).

    We will delve further into this in V. below.

    III. Why Sukkos?

    Whatever the history, there is no doubt that great sagacity was applied to our current system. So, we must ask: Why do we choose to finish the Torah at this time of year?

        When I was younger, I would surmise that this was because the luchos rishonos of Shavuos were broken, then we did teshuvah, and on Yom Kippur Hashem forgave us making our kabalas hatorah complete with our receiving the luchos sheniyos. The first ‘available’ day after Yom Kippur to venerate this kabalas hatorah – when all are gathered without additional/special mitzvos of the day – is shemeni atzeres.

        Later, I grasped a far simpler solution and, chasdei Hashem, I now discovered that Rav Gedalya Felder (d. 1991) makes the same point (Yesodei Yeshurin, chelek 4, p. 355-365).

        Chazal share that Ezra obligated us in two specific leinings on two precise Shabbosim of the year -no matter the cycle of Torah reading one may be utilizing. We must read the tochecha found at the end of sefer vayikra (in ‘bechukosei’) before Shavuos, and those found at the end of sefer devarim (in ‘ki savo’) before Rosh Hashana (as to why we today lein these tochechos two Shabbosos before these yomim tovim, see tosfos to megila 31b).

        For those that observed the triennial cycle, then, during these two Shabbosos, they would have likely paused their cycle and instead read these tochechos, returning the next week to their cycle. Or they may have read their regular reading and simply added these special readings as a maftir.

        However, for our current yearly cycle of parshios, it not only works out perfectly with this gezeira of Ezra, but it seems to have been arranged around it! We place bechukosei before Shavous, and ki savo before Rosh Hashana, and everything falls where it falls -including our yearly completion happening right after sukkos.

       There are many questions we have yet to answer, such as why do not why to make this siyum on the Shabbos following shemini atzeres, why this isn’t a concern of ein maavirin, who introduced the positions where we stop for aliyos, who decided which parshios are sometimes combined, and how we developed various fascinating minhagim on simchas torah.

    IV. Misaligned Parshios

    I often share that one of the great maalos of rabbanus is the interesting questions one receives. While we all hear great kashos from time to time, only rabbanus demands one to give at least some effort in finding answers.

    I was recently asked a question which I would venture every reader has had in their back of their minds. Even those who have verbalized it may have not taken the time to search for an answer.

    Thankfully, I do not have that ‘luxury’.

    This morning, after shachris, a young member asked”

    “Whenever the 22nd of Nissan fall on Shabbos a strange situation is created. In eretz yisroel it is just a regular Shabbos, although issru chag, and they read the parshas hashavuah. For us in chutz l’aretz, it is acharon shel pesach, which has its own special kriah. Meaning, the next week we read the parsha they had read the Shabbos before.

    “We are out of sync!

    “This continues so that the week you are reading this article, if you are in chutz l’aretz the parsha is Emor, and if you are in eretz yisroel, the parsha is Bahar!”

    This can happen due to Shavuos as well, see Biur HaGr’a and Biur Halacha siman 428 s.v. bamidbar for all the ways the parshios can fall out each year, and why. See also Shaarei Yitzchak end of klal 11. See Magen Avraham ad loc. sif katan 6 and Mishna Berrura 10.

    Before revealing his central concern, we should point out that this observations leads to numerous isues, many of which will be discussed below. For instance, those who were here for Pesach will return to eretz yisroel and suddenly be one parsha behind! What should they do?

    IV. The Visiter

    Let’s pause to discuss this issue. What should a visiter to Israel from America do about his missed parsha should he arrive after such a Pesach or Shavuos?

    • Should they make a minyan of bnei chutz l’aretz?
    • If so, should they lein then both nasso (which chutz l’aretz is reading) and bahaloscha the same week?
    • How would they divide those aliyos?
    • What about the reverse -where over the next few weeks, an Israeli visits America?

    The Strict View

    The Chida discusses a case where people are stuck in a city without a Torah -missing that parsha completely, ruling that they need not make up this missed parsha the next week.

       While a tempting comparison to our case -and the American visitor should just skip nasso -many reject the connection. In the case of the city without a Torah, the next week will not be the time for the missed parsha, while in our case, the missed parsha may be seen as related to that Shabbos since it’s read that week back home!

    This is indeed how many poskim see it. They compare our case, rather, to the shul that read the wrong parsha one week, where we rule that the next week they read the missed parsha plus the parsha of the week (siman 135, Rema based on the Ohr Zaruah).

        In our case, then, a visiting American should read both parshios if when he arrives we are still not aligned (Yesodei Yeshurin, 4, p. 388).

    While the poskim seem to say that in such a case we would read the parshios in order -the missed one and then the regular one -some suggest otherwise (based on the Shu”t Maharsham 1:213).

      Nevertheless, the leining by mincha and Mondays and Thursday will remain like eretz yisroel’s (see shu”t Btzel Chachmah, 1:2-8 where every permutation of these questions are discussed in great detail).

       This is also the view found in Piskei Teshuvos (285:9).

      The Leneint View

      Rav Moshe Feinstein was often quoted agreeing with the above view, obligating Americans to read a make-up leining the first week in Israel.

       However, Rav Fried of Dallas, the author of Yom Tov Sheni K’Hilchoso heard from talmidim of both Rav Shach and Rav Aurbach that they struggled to accept Rav Moshe would ever rule this way.

       He then reached out to Rav Dovid Feinstein who confirmed that this was indeed a false rumor, and that Rav Moshe ruled that there is no need for any leining make-up, as one is to simply to follow the leining of the place one is presently in (as for learning the missed sidreh -a rav should be consulted).

    Rav Sholmo Zalman Aurbach and Rav Elyashiv agreed (see ibid. at length, p. 238-240).

        While Rav Elyashiv looks favorably on such a person hearing a make-up leining of the missed parsha, he says it’s not an obligation.

       For those that are machmir, Rav Elyashiv gives the following procedure – the missed parsha is read first; the first aliya should be for that entire missed parsha; this is followed by the ‘real’ parsha, divided into six aliyos (or with a seventh hosafa).

       As for the Israeli visiting America during these misaligned weeks, he may lein, get an aliyah, and should certainly attend this leining as part of the kehilla.

       These questions are complex, and a rav must be consulted.  For instance, must such a make-up leining only be performed if there’s minyan of Americans, etc.

    V. Why The Long Wait?

    But there is a deeper, non-halachik question that this creates, and it was this that the young man this morning wished to know.

    In some years, we wait until the parshios of matos–massei to catch up! (In that, that Shabbos in eretz yisroel they lein only massei while outside lein both are read).

    There are certainly are earlier candidates! For example, in the year of this writing, chutz l’aretz could have caught up the very first week following yom tov – by merging achrei mos and kedoshim!

    If for whtever reason this was not an option, what about behar–bechukosei -which this year was not merged, but could have been for this purpose!?

    Why then do we wait all the way till the summer? It seems that we are going out of our way to stay out of sync for some time.

    Strange.

    To get an understanding of all of this, we first have to review our unpacking above of the history of the parshios.

    Historically, finishing the Torah once a year was not a universal custom, with some communities completing it only once every three years-three and a half (see Megilla 29b).

    Still in the year 1170 there were two shuls in Egypt –one that leined what we know today as the parshios of the week, and the other that read at a third that pace (Masoas Binyamin M’Toledo, Adler edition, p. 63)!

    Yes, this means that the latter group did not have ‘Simchas Torah’! (See Toldos Simchas Torah, ch. 1)

    At some point, around eight-hundred years ago, everyone began to complete the Torah cycle once every year.

    The system still went through certain revisions, for instance the Avudaram gives us one double parsha that we no longer observe –shelach–korach!

    In fact, the Chida quotes from the Rosh that “The purpose of the divisions of parshios is simply so as to finish the Torah once every year. Each leader of every community separates and combines the parshios as he sees fit, for these are not halachos rather minhag (shu”t Chaim Shaal, Chazah HaTenufa; Kitzur Teshuvos HaRosh 54. See also shu”t Ohr Zarua 2:45 for an interesting communal case where he echoes the same point as the Rosh).

    However, certainly at our point in history we are obliged to follow minhag yisroel.

    With all of this in mind we get an answer as to why we wait so long to be in sync with eretz yisroel.

    [See CHART at the end of article of all possible outcomes]

    The Maharit (d.1639) in a teshuva (2:4) asks this question. He first quotes the above gemara about takanas Ezra, and reminds us that we follow the view of Tosfos (s.v. kelolos) to lein the kelolos two shabbosim before those yomim tovim, so that we have a buffer of one stam parsha in-between.

    Now we can understand why we wait so long to join eretz yisroel. Because of the way Pesach fell this year they will be leining the kelolos with a two week buffer before Shavous. While they have no choice in the matter, we certainly do not wish to join them in being so distant from the takana of Ezra!

    But why this long? We could easily accomplish the above without going through almost all of sefer bamidbar missaligned!

    •  First note that chukas-balak is only read together outside of eretz yisroel, as it’s an invention solely as a means to catch up.

    In a play on ‘yom tov sheni shel golios’, my predecessor in Buffalo, Rav Yirmiyahu Kaganoff, calls that double parsha: ‘parshios shel golios’.

    • Aside for a Friday Shavuos, the other scenario when we become misaligned with eretz yisroel is when acharon shel Pesach falls on Shabbos.
    • However, it is when that occurs during a leap year that we wait until matos-massei to conjoin, even though there seems to be many options to combine prior to matos–massei.

    Why?

    The Maharit explains that we do not wish to alter the norm. Since in most years matos–massei are leined together – and chukas and Balak are leined separately – we seek to maintain this.

               Another approach comes from the Bnei Yissoschor (maamrei chodesh tammuz–av, 2). He wonders why we generally lein chukas and balak separately, while matos and massei are almost always read together.

    He explains that we strive to lein the parshios that speak of chalukas ha’aertz – the division of eretz yisroel – specifically during bein hametzarim, the Three Weeks as a means of hope.

    Since the chalukas ha’aretz is also discussed in parshas pinchas, we separate chukas and balak so that pinchas could also be leined during the Three Weeks.

                This logic of the Bnei Yissoschor may also explain this long wait of conjoining when the last day of Pesach occurs on Shabbos during a leap year. If chukas and balak would be read together -and thus allowing a quicker catch up to eretz yisroel – then pinchas would be read before the Three Weeks.

    In fact, in eretz yisroel, all the parshios during such a year must be read separately to allow for this.

      However, in chutz l’aretz, we avoid this by simply refraining from combining parshios until matos–massei.

      The result is that pinchos, with its topics of chalukas ha’aretz, will be lained during the Three Weeks here and in eretz yisroel, and we will also then catch up.

    Ah, the beauty of halacha and minhag!

    Below:

    While doing research for this topic, my chaver Dr. Shlomo Dalezman, was very helpful. He was also kind enough to prepare the following chart:

    1 –

    Shavuos on Friday1 – Shavuos on Friday

    In Chu”l shabbos is second day Shavuos , in E”Y it is isru chag and they lein naso

    Date – Chul- EY

    7 Sivan – Shavuos – Naso

    14 Sivan – Naso – Behaloscha

    21 Sivan – Behaloscha – Shelach

    28 Sivan – shelach – Korach

    5 Tammuz – Korahc – chukas

    12 Tammuz – Chukas& Balak – Balak – 

    19 Tammuz – Pinchas – 1st of 3 weeks

    (note it doesn’t matter if was a leap year or not)

    2 –

    Pesach on shabbos in a leap year 

    In chu”l acharon shel Pesach is on Shabbos, in E”Y it is acharei mos.

    Date – Chul- EY

    22 Nissan – Acharon shel PEsach – Acharei

    29 Nissan  – Achaeri- Kedoshim 

    6 Iyar – Kedoshim – emor

    13 Iyar – Emor – Behar

    20 Iyar – Behar – Bechukosai

    27 Iyar – Bechukosai – Bamidbar

    5 Sivan – Bamidbar – Naso  (Erev Shavuos)

    12 Sivan – Naso – Behaloscha

    19 sivan Behaloscha – shelach

    26 Sivan – shelach – Korach

    3 Tammuz – Korach – chukas

    10 Tammuz – Chukas – Balak

    17 Tammuz – Balak – Pinchas

    24 Tammuz – Pinchas – Matos (1st 3 weeks) 

    2  Av – Matos + MAsei – MAsei (2nd 3 weeks)

    9 Av- Devarim – (3rd 3 weeks) 

    3 –

    Acharon Shel Pesach falls on Shabbos in non-leap year 

    In chu”l it is acharon shel Pesach, in E”Y they read shemini.

    Date – Chul- EY

    22 Nissan – Acharon shel PEsach – Shemini

    29 Nissan  -Shemini – Tazria+metzora

    6 Iyar –  Tazria+metzora  – Acharei + kedoshim

    13 Iyar –   Acharei + kedoshim  – Emor

    20 Iyar – emor – Behar 

    27 Iyar – Behar+ Bechukosai – Bechukosai 

    5 Sivan – Bamidbar  (Erev Shavuos)

  • May One Activate Thermal Hand Warmers on Shabbos?

    May One Activate Thermal Hand Warmers on Shabbos?

    Also: are they muktzah if already heating?

    February 2025

    I was recently met with a heated reaction when discussing…a heated reaction.

    During a recent post-Minchah halachah shiur, I was examining the halachos related to hand warmers on Shabbos. A rabbi never knows what topic may provoke a vociferous response, and the crowd grew passionate during this discussion.

    “This has to be assur!” implored one.

    “Well, some do see this as an issur Torah,” I responded.

    “Good,” said another, and then added, “Just because we don’t know what the issur is doesn’t mean it’s muttar! I can’t understand why this is even up for discussion.”

    I told the group that the day before, when I arrived at shul for Shabbos Minchah, I had noticed one of these hand warmers lying on the armrest of my chair.

    “I was unsure how it got there, and then I wondered if I could move it out of the way on Shabbos. This led me to speculate about whether one would be allowed to activate such technology on Shabbos. You might ask, ‘What difference does it make why they’re assur?’ So I will start by showing that it actually does make a big difference.”

    Let’s explore how these warmers work and what is problematic about using them on Shabbos.

    I. First: A Muktzah Primer

    Whether such gloves may be activated on Shabbos will be discused below. That issue came about as simply a byproduct to an initial sh’eilah I had: may I move them//are they muktzah?

    Many mistakenly assume that the central premise behind Nechemia’s decree of muktzah is the concern that moving certain items on Shabbos may lead a person to use them for their forbidden functions. For example, a pen is muktzah in order to prevent one from writing on Shabbos.

    Although the fear that one may do a forbidden melachah sometimes plays a role in muktzah (“muktzah machmas issur“, e.g. a lit candle, see below) this is not the chief concern behind muktzah (see Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 24:12). Nor would such reasoning explain why, say, an expensive painting would be muktzah (muktzah machmas chesron kis).

    In other words: muktza as an invention of a new category that was birthed together with an injunction against its movement, having nothing to do with melacha or its prevention, per se.

    A Simple Demonstration:

    A PEN

    A pen becomes muktzah not because we fear one will forget and write with it, rather, and simply, because we assume that one is not planning to use it on Shabbos, and all items assumed to not be utilized on Shabbos are deemed muktzah.

    That’s it.

    Muktzah, then, simply means hukatz—to be set aside.

    This means that the many categories of muktzah are, in truth, simply the various reasons for the assumption these items were set aside.

    A pen is muktzah, and falls into the category of a kli shemelachto l’issur, something we assume is not planned for its main function since that act is forbidden on Shabbos.

    Because a pen does have some non-abstract uses that are permitted on Shabbos – e.g. as a pointer, to open nuts, etc. – it may be used for those purposes on Shabbos if they arise, as it was never hukatz from those. Indeed, items like this that are muktzah due to their issur status are the weakest type of muktzah, and may be moved if they are but in one’s way.

    So even if hand warmers are assur on Shabbos, I could have moved the ones on my chair.

    But wait! There may be another type of muktzah to consider.

    As mentioned, there is a special category called muktzah machmas issur. This category of muktzah only shares its name, yet is unrelated to classic muktzah and its special injunction. This is when an item is deemed muktzah not because of an assumption of disuse (painting, pen, a rock, etc.), rather because handling this item may lead to a forbidden activity/result. Some common examples are a lit candle – which is muktzah because moving it may cause it to be extinguished; wet clothes – which are muktzah because one may wring them out; and an iPhone – which is muktzah because its backlight may be activated.

    If it is indeed forbidden to activate hand warmers on Shabbos and if it is true that moving them may activate them, they would not only be muktzah by dint of being a kli issur, but also muktzah machmas issur!

    However, according to many, the fear of violating a rabbinical prohibition would preclude an item from falling into this latter category of muktzah.

    II. How Do They Work?

    We have been working under the assumption that activating such warmers would certainly be forbidden on Shabbos.

    Is this true? How do they work?

    There are two types of hand warmers.

    • The less common type is a reusable pack filled with a supersaturated solution of sodium acetate in water (gel). When the small metal disc inside is agitated, it releases tiny fragments of metal that act as nucleation sites for sodium acetate, changing the gel from a liquid to a near-solid state, which releases stored heat energy in a process called crystallization.
    • The more common type of hand warmer is for one-time use. Inside the pouch are tiny crumbs of iron. When agitated, oxygen is introduced, causing a speedy rust process to begin releasing energy as heat. (Other chemicals such as salt may be added to speed up the process.)

    The halachic issues involved are numerous.

    In regard to the first type, we must first consider bishul, which on the Torah level is only a concern at high temperatures that likely do not apply here. If indeed such temperatures are reached, it still only reheats the gel, which is a rabbinic concern (bishul achar bishul), and only according to some poskim.

    This concern may apply to the second type as well, depending on how we define bishul b’chamah and toldos chamah (cooking with the sun and other odd methods of cooking; famously, this is the problem with microwaving on Shabbos in terms of bishul; see, e.g., shu”t Igros Moshe 3:52).

    Furthermore, many people place empty aluminum pans on top of a hot plate on Shabbos. Would bishul even apply to such metals? (See Chazon Ish 37:11, with Chut Shani 22:4.)

    Beyond bishul, there are other issues such as molid, creating a new entity on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Molid is the reason we are permitted on Yom Tov to light a candle from an existing fire, but we can’t kindle a new flame.

    Finally, there is the biblical concern of makeh b’patish, which involves completing or activating an item by adding the finishing touch.

    III. Other Considerations

    The chemical reactions in hand warmers and their halachic applications go well beyond warm hands. They are an issue, for instance, when it comes to MRE self-heating meals, which soldiers use (and which I used during the time I traveled for kashrus supervision). One activates the pouch, places the sealed food on it, returns it to the box and waits (which means adding hatmanah to the halachic mix).

    May one reheat food this way on Shabbos?

    {For those who are interested, Rav Menachem Shimmel published two brilliant essays delving into this technology and its many halachic applications in Yeshurun, volumes 20 and 21}

    IV. Lessons Learned

    Although people should ask their rav about these many fascinating issues, I am discussing all this for reasons beyond l’hagdil Torah.

    I’d like to share what I told the agitated members of my learning group, who were bewildered by the fact that I would even consider investigating the possibility that hand warmers might be permitted on Shabbos.

    Of course we should trust our instinct, certainly in regard to the question of when to ask a sh’eilah. Although it is also true that issues such as zilzul Shabbos can be defined by the era or by one’s feeling (specifically, the feelings of the leaders of that generation; see Chazon Ish), one must still be able to discuss the halachah dispassionately and not just because it has real-world applications for cholim and soldiers.

    Moshe Rabbeinu understood the danger of making decisions while in an agitated state, even though his anger in that instance was righteous (see Bamidbar 31:22 with Sifri and Rashi).

    Knowing the exact status of items such as hand warmers and MRE meals aids us in understanding muktzah, and it may indeed assist a soldier on the field by preventing him from using a much worse mode of bishul. It can also be useful to a choleh or someone who is alone for Shabbos (see Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, quoted by Rav Schimmel at the end of one of his essays).

    Food for thought. ●

  • A Mistaken Dairy Beracha After a Meat Meal!

    A Mistaken Dairy Beracha After a Meat Meal!

    What to do by a mistaken Beracha

    February, 2025

    Imagine this: You finish a delicious schnitzel dinner and bentch. A few minutes later, you are hankering for something sweet to settle your stomach. You rummage in the fridge and cabinets—and then you notice freshly made cupcakes right next to the oven.

    Excited, you lift one out of the tin and recite a heartfelt Mezonos. As you slowly bring the the hot dessert to your mouth, you hear someone say, “You’re gonna love these cupcakes. They’re made with real heavy cream.”

    Oh, no! They’re milchig! You just ate schnitzel a few minutes ago—but you already made the brachah!

    What do you do now?

    A version of this story happened to a bachur in Cincinnati this week. Rabbi Shmuel Botnick, a well-known writer and a friend of mine, is the boy’s rebbi, and they called together to hear my thoughts.

    I teased Rabbi Botnick, telling him that he was not just an anav (which he is) but that he wanted to share the responsibility for this psak with someone else (see beginning of Maseches Horayos).

    Among the most challenging questions that rabbanim face are those regarding hilchos brachos. Over the years we’ve discussed a number of these sh’eilos, such as the real story behind Pringles and whether a Shehakol is the correct brachah to make on them.

    Before we move on to the latest example, I’d like to share a story demonstrating that it is no exaggeration to describe brachos as one of the most challenging topics in halachah.

    Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (d. 1940) was known as a unique iluy among gedolim. Our rebbeim used to tell us that he was able to write two teshuvos at the same time, one with each hand, while he was on the phone answering a third sh’eilah.

    During one of the first Agudah conventions, Rav Chaim Ozer was staying in a hotel under a pseudonym. He was exhausted after his long journey from Vilna and needed time and space to consider the many decisions facing the klal.

    However, a determined young yeshivah bachur did not want to allow an opportunity to meet this gadol baTorah slip by, and he found out where Rav Chaim Ozer was staying.

    The young man knocked on his door. Rav Chaim Ozer did not want to send him away, so he asked him to be brief.

    “I’d like to discuss a sugya,” said the bachur.

    “On what topic?”.

    “Hilchos brachos.”

    Rav Chaim Ozer paused, thought, and then responded, “I just had a very long journey. Please, choose another sugya...”

    In the case of the milchig cupcake, we have several issues to deal with.

    • What exactly is a brachah l’vatalah?
    • How necessary is kavanah? In other words, may the person who made the Mezonos simply eat another Mezonos item that is pareve?
    • What is the reason for waiting between meat and dairy?
    • We need to compare the prohibitions in such a case so that we will know whether it is preferable to make a brachah l’vatalah or to eat thecupcake.

    Chazal tell us that a brachah l’vatalah is a violation of one of the Aseres Hadibros—“Lo sisa Shem Hashem lashav, you shall not take Hashem’s name in vain” (Shemos 20:7; Brachos 33a). It would seem that this bachur has a simple choice—either eat the cupcake and violate the rabbinic rule to wait between meat and milk, or eat a little and avoid violating a Torah law by making a brachah l’vatalah.

    It follows, therefore, that he should eat a little of the cupcake.

    If only it were that simple!

    The Rambam understands this gemara as affirming that a blessing in vain is a Torah violation (Hilchos Brachos 1:15, with Magen Avraham 215:6; see also Teshuvos HaRambam, Pe’er Hador, 105). However, many poskim disagree.

    Tosfos explain that Chazal are not saying that a brachah l’vatalah actually violates the issur of using Hashem’s name in vain. Rather, it is a rabbinical concern that is simply supported by that pasuk.

    The Chofetz Chaim explains this reasoning by reminding us that a brachah is, after all, a praise of Hashem. If one recites a brachah with Hashem’s name, saying, “Blessed are You, Hashem, for creating the fruits of the tree” without intending to eat any fruit, how can that be considered prohibited mid’Oraisa under Lo Sisa? It is a true statement of praise, perhaps no different from saying the Shem Hashem when singing zemiros on Shabbos, as some do.

    Therefore, he and others explain that although such praise would be allowed on a Torah level, Chazal wanted to prevent other inappropriate uses of Hashem’s name by creating the special prohibition titled “brachah l’vatalah” (see Tosfos, Rosh Hashanah 33a, Mishnah Brurah 215:20, Chazon Ish, siman 137).

    According to these shittos, the bachur had the choice of violating one of two d’Rabbanans—eating dairy after meat, or making a brachah l’vatalah.

    But if these options are of equal weight, how does one decide?

    The best option is not to eat the cupcake but to say, “Baruch shem kevod malchuso l’olam va’ed.” This is based on the rule “Shev v’al taaseh adif—an error of omission is better than an error of commission” (see shu”t Yabia Omer 2:5).

    For example, the Mishnah Brurah rules that if on Yom Tov one makes a brachah on an item and then realizes that it is muktzah, he should not eat it (515:5). It would seem that the same applies here.

    You may think that we have come to a conclusion…but we are not even close, because all of this information was given under the presumption that the halachah of waiting between meat and eating dairy is d’Rabbanan.

    Is that true?

    Chazal teach in the name of Rav Chisda that one must not eat dairy after meat (Chullin 105a). Some understand this to mean that one simply needs to wash out his mouth before eating dairy (Rabbeinu Tam, et al.); others explain that one must bentch and clear away the meat meal first (Rif, Ramban, et al.).

    Chazal then give the view of Mar Ukvah, who required waiting “until the next meal” in order to have dairy after meat, and this is the view we follow. The question, then, is how long one must wait “until the next meal.”

    The Rambam is the first to give us a period of six hours, writing, “One who ate meat should not eat dairy until the length of a meal passes, which is approximately six hours because of the meat between the teeth that cannot be removed by kinuach (literally, wiping, meaning consuming other foods)” (Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros, 9:28; see Gra and Pleisi 89:3, with Shabbos 10a and Pesachim 12b).

    The Rema disagrees with the Rambam, telling us that this d’Rabbanan guideline means that one may eat dairy only if he bentched and his mouth is clean. “The minhag that has become prevalent in these lands,” he says, “is to wait one hour…and there are those who are careful to wait six hours…and it is fitting to do so.”

    Therefore, for the majority of Ashkenazim, who don’t following the Rambam, the bachur had a choice between violating a d’Rabbanan by making a blessing in vain (according to others, a d’Oraisa) and violating a halachic minhag.

    This would seem to mean that he should have taken a small bite after his mistaken brachah.

    That was my ruling, and I was soon able to find many poskim who agreed (Yabia Omer, ibid.; see Psakim V’teshuvos 89, notes 56-58; other say that this is only at least an hour after eating the meat—see shu”t Be’er Moshe 4:24; shu”t Teshuvos V’hanhagos, 2:289).

    What about kavanah, his intention? Once he discovered his error, couldn’t he simply have eaten another Mezonos item in place of the milchig cupcake? According to many, the other food would have had to be in front of him at the time he made the brachah.

    Others would permit this option even if he simply intended to eat the other Mezonos item or was being served another item or under another’s control (see Shulchan Aruch Harav 206:1 and Mishnah Brurah 206:26).

    And we haven’t even discussed the idea of calling a rav to ask a sh’eilah after making a potentially mistaken brachah!

    I think this case suffices as our yearly reminder that brachos are complex and that we must be as vigilant and mindful about what comes out of our mouths as we are about what goes in. ●

  • May One Shave or Get a Haircut On a Taanis (Fast day)?

    May One Shave or Get a Haircut On a Taanis (Fast day)?

    & Other Fasting Imponderables, such as fasting erev Shabbos, Fridays.

    January 2025

    I. Friday Fasting

    I’m writing this on the morning of Asarah B’Teves.

    It seems that every time this fast falls on Erev Shabbos, people forget that it is even possible…even though it happened just last year (2024)!

    This misconception is based on the halachic myth that one may not fast on an Erev Shabbos.

    This inaccuracy is likely inferred from the fact that when we have a nidcheh, a deferred ta’anis, we don’t observe it on a Friday (see Aruch Hashulchan, siman 470:4).

    However, the Shulchan Aruch informs us that anshei maaseh—very conscientious people—had the custom to fast every Erev Shabbos (Orach Chaim 249:3)!

    The Mishnah Brurah states that although it is no longer appropriate to take on this minhag, a person who will enjoy the Friday-night seudah more if he does not eat on Friday is allowed to adopt this practice.

    In our current calendar, Asarah B’Teves is the only one of the four ta’aneisim listed in Tanach (Zechariah 8:19) that can fall on Friday (siman 550 se’if kattan #10 in Mishnah Brurah; see also Meiri on Megillah 2a, as well as the Bach and the Taz).

    HOWEVER….Fasting on an Erev Shabbos could technically apply to any of the rabbinical fasts listed in Zechariah. Rather, in our calendar cycle they happen to never fall on Friday.

    As for a unique quality found only in Asarah B’Teves, the Avudraham (d. circa 1370) asserts that, for this date only (and Yom Kippur), if were to fall on Shabbos itself, we would not move it (see Beis Yosef, siman 550 at end; see also Aruch Hashulchan 549:2)!

    This view is solely academic since Asarah B’Teves could only fall on a Shabbos if Rosh Chodesh Teves falls on a Thursday, which can never happen in our system (Shulchan Aruch, siman 428:2; nor can Rosh Chodesh Teves fall on a Shabbos).

    II. Shaving/Haircuts on a Fast

    Because I am writing this on Erev Shabbos, I have been receiving many sh’eilos about shaving and haircuts. For example, I was asked whether the fact that we don’t cut our hair on a fast day eclipses the requirement to tidy ourselves up l’kavod Shabbos (see Rema, siman 260).

    A similar question was whether it is permissible to taste the food l’kavod Shabbos and then spit it out even though we don’t do so on a public ta’anis (Mishnah Brurah, siman 567:6).

    This is a popular sh’eilah even on a weekday fast. Others included whether it is permissible to listen to music or buy new clothing.

    The sole reference to cutting one’s hair on a fast day (cf. Tishah B’Av) is a famous gemara relating to Chanukah (Rosh Hashanah 18b). Here is the background.

    In galus, Chazal wished to nullify our observance of the days mentioned in Megillas Taanis. This sefer containsthe earliest recordings of 30-plus post-biblical salvations and their commemorations, and it is the original source for the events and laws of Chanukah. Although the other observances were annulled in time, Chazal made an exemption for Chanukah (see my upcoming sefer on Chanukah, iy”H, which explores this in depth).

    Rav Yehoshua ben Levi held that this sefer’s contents were not nullified, and he was therefore shocked when the town of Lud declared a fast on one of the days of Chanukah. His shock is not surprising since the name “Megillas Taanis” was given precisely because fasting is not allowed on most of the days it records (see the hakdamah to the Oz V’hadar ed.).

    In protest, Rav Yehoshua decided to take action to demonstrate to the populace his displeasure with observing a fast during these celebratory days. He got a haircut!

    Evidently, haircuts were known to be forbidden on a fast. Can we infer from here that it is indeed forbidden to cut one’s hair on a fast day?

    Well, the Shulchan Aruch states that all inuyim—discomforts such as not bathing and not anointing oneself—which are prohibited on Tishah B’Avare permissible on other rabbinical fasts (siman 550).

    The Mishnah Brurah adds that although it is permissible to do these things, “baal nefesh yachmir,” meaning that a conscientious person should be strict about abstaining from them—with the exception of wearing leather shoes, which even a baal nefesh wears on standard fast days.

    The Biur Heitiv states similarly, “Perhaps we should be machmir in these areas on the other fast days as well,” implying a more universal chumrah (siman 551, s.v. mei’rosh chodesh).

    But haircuts are not mentioned specifically, nor is the story about Rav Yehoshua. Wouldn’t this be a clear source, and also demonstrate that haircutting is not simply a chumrah?

    Enter Rav Chaim Pilagi (d. 1868), who ruled that it is forbidden to have one’s hair cut on a taanis, even citing the above gemara as his source! He states further that one should not even get a haircut the night before a taanis.

    He does say, however, that when a taanis falls on Erev Shabbos, a haircut would be allowed (Ruach Chaim, siman 566:4; see also shu”t Lev Chaim).

    But if the gemara is so clear, why do many say it is only a chumrah not to have a haircut on a weekday taanis? And if, for whatever reason, it is allowed, why should we establish a chumrah?(See, e.g., Rav Tuvya Goldstein in shu”t Emek Halachah, pg. 175, where he permits haircuts on a taanis but leans toward acting strictly.)

    The Acharonim point out that the above gemara is actually the source for both the allowance and the chumrah!

    Rav Yehoshua’s decision to have his hair cut on a taanis always seemed curious. If he wanted to protest the taanis, why not just eat and drink?

    The Shaagas Aryeh (d. 1785) lived over a hundred years before Rav Chaim Palagi and was the rav of the Ashkenazic community, as opposed to the revered Lev Chaim, who was a Sephardic leader in Izmir, Turkey. He raises many questions about Rav Yehoshua’s decision (Turei Even on Rosh Hashanah).

    To explain it, he interprets the gemara brilliantly, stating that Lud’s ta’anis must have been institutedby its own rabbanim, binding everyone to it—including rabbanim such as Rav Yehoshua who might have vehemently opposed it. Therefore, the only form of protest available was ceremonious in nature.

    The obvious conclusion, then, would be that this gemara and Rav Yehoshua’s decision are proof that a haircut is perforce allowed on a rabbinic fast, except that it is not in the spirit of the day. (Cf. Ritva, who also asks why Rav Yehoshua didn’t simply eat as a protest. He answers that Rav Yehoshua wanted to do something publicly. Perhaps the Ritva understood that Rav Yehoshua wouldn’t eat in a public domain, which the gemara compares to the behavior of dogs.)

    In summation, there is no clear prohibition against shaving or having one’s hair cut even on a weekday taanis (with the exception of Tishah B’Av). Rav Chaim Palagi’s opinion is a singular one.

    Nevertheless, and although it is not a halachah, we should try to be strict regarding haircuts, music, and other activities that may counter the spirit of mourning on a fast day (Dayan Fisher, shu”t Even Yisrael 7:28). ●

  • Bentching With Both Retzai & Yaaleh V’Yavo?

    Bentching With Both Retzai & Yaaleh V’Yavo?

    Bentching on a Motzai Shabbos Rosh Chodesh

    March 2024

    I. A-typical Timetable

    I recently shared how this year (5784) is unique in that we will be leining the haftaros of Mikeitz, Tazria, and Kedoshim. The haftarah of Tazria was last leined in 5763, a gap of 21 years!

    Such a long “drought” occurred only three times—in the years 4180, 5537, and now, 5784.

    The haftarah of Mikeitz is leined in only 10.1 percent of years.

    Haftaras Kedoshim is the real anomaly, leined injust 5.8 percent of years, with a potential 44-year gap between readings! It’s leined only in a year exactly like this one—a 383-day leap year, when both Kislev and Cheshvan are 29 days, and Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos.

    Typically, when Shabbos is Erev Rosh Chodesh, we lein the haftarah “Machar Chodesh.” However, this Erev Adar Sheini we didn’t because of Parshas Shekalim.

    I wondered how unique it is not to lein “Machar Chodesh” on a Shabbos Erev Rosh Chodesh and learned that it is surprisingly common, occurring on average 55 times every 100 years, and only when before Rosh Chodesh Nisan, Elul and Adar (I and II).

    However, unless a shul leins haftaros from a klaf, all of these curiosities don’t pose much of a challenge.

    But there is another calendar query that fools many people into thinking it’s rare when it’s actually relatively frequent.

    II. Commonly Rare

    The issue to which I refer occurs 182 times every 100 years, or 1.82 times per year. (Of these times 182 times, “Machar Chodesh” will be omitted 55 times.)

    This is the dilemma of when the first day of Rosh Chodesh falls on Sunday.

    RULE: This issue can only arise in Nisan, Iyar, Sivan, Elul, Cheshvan, Kislev or Adar (I or II).

    Each time this occurs, it’s the same routine. Long after shekiah, the sponsor for the shul’s shalosh seudos lifts up the kos to lead the zimun, and the gabbai calls out, “Rabbi, what should we do—say both Yaaleh V’yavo and Retzei? Or should we skip one of them?”

    Often, someone will wisely recognize this issue even before we wash. “Should we make sure to eat a certain amount in a certain amount of time so as to minimize the sh’eilos with Yaaleh V’yavo?”

    III. The Rabbi’s Changing Mind

    The answers to some sh’eilos—with no reigning ruling or minhag, and where the sho’el is protected from any serious violation, irrespective of the psak—can change based on the slightest nuances.

    For me, this was true with our bentching problem where, each time I go through all the technical issues, I seem to come up with a different conclusion. 

    The concern here, of course, is whether this period of time should be treated as Shabbos by reciting Retzei, or whether it is Rosh Chodesh, in which case Yaaleh V’yavo should be said.

    They can’t both be true!

    Such dualities are often termed “tarti d’sasri,” or self-contradicting (see the very first Tosfos in all of Shas and on Beitzah 14a, s.v. “tarti”; see Chayei Adam 118:5).

    The Shulchan Aruch rules (199:10) that a Shabbos or Yom Tov meal that extends into the night, when it is already technically the next day, is considered to belong to the time when the bread was first eaten. This would mean that it is still considered to be Shabbos (or Yom Tov). 

    (Based on this, many assume that they may continue eating after shekia, so long as they washed and began eating before. While this is true, many rule that it is only true for bread. Making a mezonos or another beracha before shekia may perhpas not allow one to continue eating similar-berach– items after shekia. Some are lenient for women. See siman 399, with achronim)

    This continuance is only active so long as one hasn’t yet davened Maariv; in fact, even saying, “Baruch hamavdil” before bentching should be avoided (see Shulchan Aruch Harav 188:17, Chayei Adam 47:24, and Mishnah Brurah 273:7. Regarding Al Hanissim, there is some debate).

    IV. Rosh Chodesh or Shabbos: Psak

    Based on the rule that the ‘day’ is tethered to the start of a meal, our question seems answered—so long as one began eating before shekia, if shalosh seudos extends into  the night, even though it is Rosh Chodesh, we consider it Shabbos and we say Retzei.

    If it were only so simple!

    The Chofetz Chaim writes that it’s possible in such a case for one to say Yaaleh V’yavo…and not Retzai!

    How? He was referring to a case where a person also eats a kezayis of bread after dark.

    The Choftez Chaim then writes that others disagree, ruling that one should say both Retzei and Yaaleh V’yavo in such a case (Mishnah Brurah, siman 188:33; see Magen Avraham on simanim 271:15 and 419:1).

    Perhaps we can now understand why the rabbi seems to change his mind from case to case!

    One may be thinking, “If this is such a common issue, just follow the great poskim.”

    Well, Rav Moshe Feinstein and others ruled that at such a shalosh seudos, if one eats a kezayis of bread only before dark  and not afterward, then he wold only recite Retzei.

    So why wouldn’t a rav announce this psak?

    The reason is that some people come late, or they don’t hear the announcement, or they may simply forget and eat more bread—commonly done without thinking, during the rabbi’s devar Torah.

    On top of that, Rav Moshe was not saying that this is the only option. He seems to say that one may instead choose to eat bread both before and after dark – and then say both Retzei and Yaaleh V’yavo!

    In fact, some poskim actually encourage people to do just that (Shulchan Aruch Harav, shu”t Be’er Moshe 1:5, all based on the Taz).

    Confusing matters, Rav Ovadia Yosef and others disagree, ruling that one should always only recite Retzei; explaining that the idea of not eating bread after dark is only a precaution to avoid a doubt and would not change the outcome.

    Rav Elyashiv agrees, also urging one not to eat bread after dark.

    However, both he and Rav Yosef rule that should one mistakenly eat bread after dark then he should in fact add Yaaleh V’yavo.

    Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agrees with Rav Elyashiv but adds a leniency. He states that if one eats less than a kezayis after dark, or even if he eats more than this shiur but over a span longer than nine minutes, he would still be in the “Retzei only” camp.

    It comes out that in the average shul, where many eat a kezayis of bread both before and after dark (both times within the nine-minute window):

    • Rav Moshe would require both Retzei and Yaaleh V’yavo;
    • Rav Yosef would require only Retzei;Rav Auerbach and Rav Elyashiv might view this as a b’di’eved but still advise that both be said;
    • Chofetz Chaim would advise that one say only Yaaleh V’yavo!

    My “inconsistent” psak is dependent on what’s happening in the group. When I realize there is a concern about bentching, I reply based on what people may already have eaten and what can still be prevented.

    The Be’er Moshe (ibid.) records that he witnessed the Divrei Chaim of Sanz go out of his way to eat shalosh seudos early on such a Shabbos in order to avoid any question!

    May the zechus of investigating this matter be a protection from error! ●

    I wish to thank Rav Yosef Yehuda Weber of Toronto, who lent his expertise on the calendar; all mistakes are my own.

  • Is It True That One May Wait Less Time Before Eating Dairy on Shavuos?

    Is It True That One May Wait Less Time Before Eating Dairy on Shavuos?

    As Well As The Source For 6 Hours, Five Hours, Three Hours, etc.

    Shavuos, 2023

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

           My daughter is seriously allergic to all dairy foods. Her younger sister once turned to her and said, “I’m so jealous of you!”.

     “Why?” she asked.

    “Because you can never have milchigs”.

    “Wait, you’re envious of me for the fact I can never have milk, or cheese or even pizza?!”

    “Yes! Because that means that you never have to halachicly wait before eatinganything! That must be amazing!”

        We have all had that moment. We make the perfect coffee with cream, or that hot pizza arrives, and as we excitedly get ready to consume it, we suddenly remember that we are fleishigs.

           The halacha of waiting after the consumption of meat is unique in many ways. Rare is such a common day-to-day halacha observed in so many ways. Some wait one-hour, other six, and still others at all points in-between.

         Further confounding matters is the surprising view of some poskim who posit that on Shavuos one need not wait as long they would the rest of the year!

          In honor of Shavuos, let’s bring some clarity and focus to this often-misunderstood subject.

          It will also help demonstrate to the reader how our poskim sail the deep waters of the yam hatalmud so to provide to us what appears as ‘simple’ halacha.

    1. The Source

            ‘Not Eating Cheese After Meat’ is the Shulchan Aruch’s title (to siman 89). He opens, “One who eats any meat (even fowl) mustn’t have dairy after until six hours pass. Even if one waited this time, any meat found between one’s teeth must be removed…”. The poskim do not demand that we check for such meat in our teeth, unless there’s reason to assume it’s there (Darkei Teshuvah, et al.).

        Although this halacha as written seems pretty clear-cut, the original source is famously murky, leading to the many opinions we’ve all heard of.

         Rav Chisda states that while one may eat meat after eating cheese, one mustn’t eat dairy after meat (chullin 105a). Some understand this to mean that one simply needs to wash and clean out their mouth before having dairy (Rabbeinu Tam, et al.), while others explain that one must bentch and clear the meat-meal first (Rif, Ramban, et al.).

          Chazal then share the view of Mar Ukvah who required waiting ‘till the next meal’ in order to have dairy after meat. This would seem to support the second view above, that all that is needed is a separate meal (and washing one’s mouth).

          However, most other rishonim see this second statement as instructing us in a novel facet to Rav Chisda’s original rule: one must wait the length of time between meals; namely between the day and evening meals (Rambam, Rashbah, Rosh, et al.). And, even then, one would still have to first bencth and clear the table from their meat meal before eating dairy (Yam Shel Shlmo, Taz).

          II. Six Hours?

      Now we understand why the Shulchan Aruch, whose goal was to share just the simplified final halacha, just shares a ‘timeframe’.

          But how did he get to ‘Six Hours’ specifically?

            The Rambam is the first to give us this length, writing, “One who ate meat should not eat dairy until the length of a meal passes, which is about/approximately six hours” (hil. maachalos isuros, 9:28).

            Great, but where did the Rambam get this timeframe from? We all must remember -especially this time of year -that the Torah was only given once, and everything we do in our halachic lives must be based upon a mesorah of Torah sh’bksav u’baal peh. The Vilna Gaon and Rav Yonasan Eibishitz demonstrate that the Rambam learnt this from chazal who had already alluded to six hours being the standard length between meals (at least for Torah scholars, see shabbos 10a and pesachim 12b with Pleisi 89:3).

             However, there are other opinions.

      III. One Hour

        The Rema comments right after the words of the Shulchan Aruch above by sharing the view of Tosfos -that so long as one cleared the table, bentched and rinsed and washed one’s mouth, dairy is allowed immediately!

              He then codifies the halacha as follows: “The basic minhag in these parts (Ashkanaz) is to wait one hour and to bentch (and also clean-out mouth, Taz; cf. Shach), however, there are those who are careful to wait six hours after eating meat to dairy, and this is fitting to follow”.

                Because generations ago most readers’ grandparents accepted this latter view, it has become a true minhag, and the poskim offer harsh words to those who undermine it(Chachmas Adam, Aruch HaShulchan). However, in certain cases, like for someone ill, many poskim are lenient to allow a ‘six-hour’ person to wait just one hour.

              While it is unclear how the Rema came to the length of one hour (as he otherwise adopted the ‘bentching/washup’ view of Tosfos), most suggest that this hour was a protective measure(see Badei HaShulchan #21; cf. Biur HaGra).

             Many Dutch Jews keep the one-hour timeframe.

        IV. Three Hours?

              Many German Jews wait three hours after meat. Many are confounded as to the source of this length, as it is neither like the view of the time between meals, or the view of simply physically separating from one meal to the next.

                 A likely source for this minhag is the Pri Chodosh (d. 1698) who posits something fascinating. Even if we accept the six-hour view, it was not referring to the universal sixty-minute hours (shaos shavos), rather seasonal hours (shaos-zemanyos).

                To explain, ever wonder where ‘sixty minutes to an hour’ comes from?

                   Twice a year, during the equinox, every place on earth (save for the poles) experiences a day and night that’s of exactly equal length. Chazal taught us (and the world!) to divide that day’s light by twelve in honor of the shevatim (Pesikta Rabbasi 4:1). That is where sixty minutes come from!

             Shaos zemanyos, however, would demand that we ignore that twice-a-year ‘perfect day’s’ hour and rather divide each day’s own daylight by twelve, resulting in shorter ‘hours’ in the winter and longer hours in the summer. This is what we do for zman krias shma and many other halachos.

                 In Amsterdam, where the Pri Chodash lived (while collecting for the Kollel Yerushalaim), the shortest day (December 21) would only have a 38 minute hour or so, leaving us with a waiting time of 3-4 hours!

              However, some wonder if this would mean in the summer one would have to wait based off a 70-80 minute hour (see Pleisi)!

          V. Five-Plus/Five-and-Half Hours

              As we saw, the primary source for the six hours was the Rambam above. If one reads his words carefully, he states, “approximately six hours”. The Meiri even writes “six or five hours” (Magen Avos, inyan 9). Rav Ovadia Yosef reminds us that they didn’t have such sophisticated time measurement devices back then, so that these measurements certainly had to be approximations! (See shu”t Yabia Omer, 1: end of 4).

                Rav Ahron Kotler set as Lakewood policy a five and half hour waiting period to allow their learning schedule to work (Pesakim V’Teshuvos, #19).

                 Everyone must follow their custom, of course.

          VI. Shavuos

             The Rema shares the minhag of eating dairy on Shavuos (in past years we delved into the many fascinating reasons). Many of our halachos above now may become activated. For instance, may one start a dairy meal (not hard cheese) and rinse-up and then serve meat without bentching? The Mishneh Berrura allows this (494:16), as the obligation to bentch is only after meat (new cloth/dishware would still be needed). Others disagree (see Shlah, shavuos, s.v. ‘shavuos’).

                But what happens if one is invited out on a second night of Shavuos and the host is serving dairy, when the guest explains that it hasn’t been six hours from their meat seudah. The host explains that they only wait three hours!

             The guest may have what to rely on, as the Elyah Rabbah (d. 1712) and others bring from the 14th century Kol Bo that on Shavuos one need not wait the full six hours!

                Some sefarim quote Rav Elyashiv as accepting this allowance if one slept and only ate poultry (Piskei Teshuvos, new ed. Siman 494, note #127 from shu”t Yisah Yosef, oh”c 2:119), whearas others quote him rejecting this allowance (Dirshu, ibid. end of note #20).

        1. Halachic Prenuptial Agreement: Consensus?

          Halachic Prenuptial Agreement: Consensus?

          Is The New Prenuptial Agreement The Solution We’ve Been Waiting For?

          Why Has It Not Caught On In Some Circles?

          Rabbi Moshe Taub

          Winter, 2015

          “The truth is obtained from within, in accord with the methodology given to Moses and passed down from generation to generation. The truth can be discovered only through joining the ranks of the chachmei hamesorah. It’s ridiculous to say ‘I have discovered something of which the Rashba didn’t know, the Ketzos didn’t know, the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge; I’ve discovered an approach to the interpretation of Torah which is completely new.’ It’s ridiculous! One has to join the ranks of the chachmei mesorah, Chazal, rishonim, gedolei acharonim, and must not try to rationalize from without the chukei haTorah, and judge. We must not judge chukim umishpatim in terms of a secular system of values.”

          Rav Yosheh Ber Soloveitchik (in response to an unrelated, and radical, ‘innovation’)

          We open with this quote not chalila to compare the brilliant pre-nuptial agreement of HaGaon Harav Willig and other tzadikim and chachamaim to the innovation toward which the above points were composed. Rather, we open with this quote simply to demonstrate the general pause some innovations may induce.

          Indeed, sometimes, this fear leads to what can be percieved to as an ‘overcorrection’, such as the initial and harsh chassideshe response to machine matzos.

          I. [I]nnovation vs [i]nnovation

          Innovation and originality in halacha pesuka can be broken into two distinct categories:

          • Application
          • Discovery

          The former happens all the time and is part of the general halachic process. Cars, planes, Keurig machines and millions of other items and cases that did not heretofore exist, or were not yet overtly discussed, yet for which we must seek out from the Torah’s wellspring of wisdom to discover how halacha seeks we operate.

          This is, primarily, the focus of sifrei shaalos u’teshuvos.

          These may be classified as ‘lower innovation’.

          A simple example of ‘lower innovation’ is the new category of ‘cholev stam’. Chiefly defended by Rav Moshe Feinstein, it was based, in part (in addition to other reasons, e.g. the Pri Chodosh), on the idea that if the Chasam Sofer  -who took the stricter understanding of this injunction– would be alive to see certain changes in the monitoring of our milk production he too may/would concur.

          Meaning -the reality changed and a new approach thereby was suggested (cf. Pri Chadash). No one denies the obligation of abstaining from choluv akum [1], rather many take the position that modern dairies in many Western countries would avoid that monicker by default. The term cholov stam is a legal fiction created soley so as not to cause the detractors of Rav Moshe’s view to accidentally consume it.

          In contrast, the more precarious type of innovation – ‘higher innovation’ – while at times valid and even needed, is riddled with concern and, sometimes, suspicion.

          What is ‘higher innovation’?

          This is when seemingly nothing has changed, the halachic reality on the ground is the same as it was in the days of Ramban, Rashba, and Rambam and yet a new approach is offered.

          Even should this new approach seem logical and valid, one can’t help but be stuck with the following concern: ‘Why didn’t the Ramban think of this? Did he, and reject it?'[2]

          It was to this type of innovation that our opening quote concerns.

          ‘Mimetic‘ halacha –the idea that we follow a mesorah– is part of our backbone, our survival. “This is how my mother/father/rav did it” is never something to capriciously dismiss. At the very least, a moment is always taken to try to decode why those before us did not come up with whatever tactic we are inventing.

          It is no surprise then that the relatively modern prenuptial agreement, composed in order to prevent the painful problem of agunas that has sadly always existed, has not spread as fast as some may have hoped. This although some great poskim have supported it.

          Over the past several weeks of this writing, various blogs and postings have asserted that further consensus on this matter has arrived. Quoting numerous charedi rabbanim, the claim is now that the prenup has grown in popularity; has finally arrived.

          The purpose of this short monograph is to discuss, primarily, the rabbinic support for such agreements; a history of psak.

          II. Prenup

          The idea of a prenup may not be as new as one might think, as its basic concept, in some form, is found in early writings.

          In the 1600’s the rav of Bamburg published his seminal Nachalas Shiva which includes many types of halachic contracts, forms and kesubos. In #9 he brings a form that may date all the way back to the end of the 12th century and the takanas sh’um, decrees from the rabbanim (some of whom were baalei Tosphos, or students thereof) of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. This form is in some ways similar to the modern prenup under discussion.

          Even Rav Moshe Feinstein (evh’e 4:107) supported certain types of similar agreements.

          However, both the former and the latter were in support of agreements that forced the husband and wife to either go to a beis din for any divorce proceeding or to follow said beis din’s rulings.

          While not a document that is pleasing to sign on one’s wedding day, there are no halachic concerns involved.

          Nevertheless, none of these would solve the agunah concern. Even the Nachalas Shiva’s form, which includes fines on the husband so long as he does not appear in beis din, never mentions his obligation in giving a get. So long as he shows up the debt is erased.

          Throughout the centuries other ideas have been introduced to solve various agunah concerns, such as Rav Singer of Galicia’s method for soldiers pre-World War 1. Although this method found prominent support, it offers no advantage in a modern setting for reasons too broad to go into here (see Rav Singer’s great nephew’s Grey Matter [Rav Jachter] for further discussion of this method. See also Igros Moshe ibid. 111).

          Other methods have been proposed by such luminaires as Rav Henkin zt’l, but were unfeasible, often dubious and were ultimately retracted (see also Rav Ahron Kotler, Mishnas Rav Ahron 60).

          In the 1920’s a sefer was composed titled ‘Ein Tnai B’kidushin’ which came to oppose directly the many innovative ideas that were being introduced at the time. This sefer comes with a haskama and a halachic history lesson by Rav Chaim Ozer zt’l.

          These names and histories are important because the relatively modern prenuptial agreement comes to assuage many of the known prior concerns.

          The chief novelty of the modern prenup is simple (what follows is not meant as an exhaustive review):

          To take advantage of the husband’s halachic obligation to support his wife.

          The idea is simple and brilliant: Why not put that in writing, either before (prenup) or after (postnup) marriage stating that, should it, chalila, come to such a point, they will settle their divorce through the arbitration of a reputable beis din? But more: The chosson would further agree that should the marriage dissolve to the point that his wife lives away from him –or he from her- then he should pay her $X per day (about $150 changing for inflation and customary needs) in living expenses [an anyway existing obligation of mezonos or extra mezanos] until such time that a get is delivered.

          This would greatly dissuade a husband from withholding or preventing a get, and should secular courts honor such agreements (and it seems as if they would) this would leave him few places to hide.

          The geonim, such as Rav Willig,who helped compose this prenup reached out to prominent poskim in Eretz Yisroel, such as Rav Ovodia Yoseph and Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, who either verbally or in writing supported this new idea.

          While we will name below the many geonim who outright support this prenup, it is important to point out that some supporters’ positions on this matter is not as black and white as it may first seem.

          Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, for instance, certainly does not agree with the composers shlita on every point. Most extraordinary is his point of departure on the knas/fine itself. He points out in his public letter of support that the wife will not in reality have an automatic claim on this money (due to homotzi meichaveiro aluv haraya – as the husband could say ‘kim li’ [a halachic tool beyond the scope of this short monograph])! While he agrees that there is no halachic concern with the prenup, he raises this (and other) weaknesses in the power this arrangement will serve, as well as challenging its historical precedent, most critically that contra Rav Willig, the Nachalas Shiva’s form can not serve as precedent to the modern prenup.

          Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg is also quoted as supporting this prenup, and is listed as such on the RCA’s prenup website.

          However, some have pointed out (see ‘Communications’, Tradition 44:1) that he may have retracted or clarified his position. The idea that the husband obligates himself to waive certain rights and to also finically support his wife daily may only be done, he says, if there is no other ulterior motive involved; it must be done simply so as to attend to his wife’s needs (for reasons made clear below).

          In addition, some of the rabbanim who have been quoted in certain non-rabbinic venues and blogs as newly or for the first time publicly supporting the prenup have a far more nuanced position than as described. Some are listed as supporters simply based on the fact that they are known to support people or organizations that themselves support this new prenup. While these poskim may perhaps also support this modern prenup, such chad gadya’s are not the way of discovery on the matter.

          One prominent posek named in one such article as a supporter told me over the phone that he would not urge its use (for reasons beyond the scope of this article) and he only said that such a prenup does not invalidate the get.[3]

          This is an important leniency in and of itself.

          III. A ‘Forced’ Get

          A common misconception among the laity is that we may force a husband to write a get.

          Not only is this false, worse, a get meusah/a forced get is invalid in most instances. Indeed, before a husband gives a get, the mesader get will ask him if there is anything obligating him to give it!

          The Rashba writes in a teshuvah that should a husband even except upon himself a knas (fine) should he not give a get (e.g. “If I don’t give a get in 10 days then I will give $100,000 to Ploni”) such a get would be deemed a get meusa (a forced get) and be pasul. The Rama (siman 134) paskens that we should be machmir like the Rashba.

          Some, then, may argue that the modern prenuptial agreement – where the husband sets a fine for each day that he does not give a get – would be precisely what the Rashba ruled is forbidden!

          Nevertheless, one could easily retort (as does Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, and this other prominent posek with whom I spoke [3]) that this prenuptial agreement does not tie the husband’s obligational payment to giving-or-not-giving the get. Rather, and only that, the giving of a get would stop a already current payment; a payment which regarding which his kesubah already obligates him.

          While there are certainly prominent poskim who support this prenup, such as Rav Ovadia Yosef (although some contest the strength of this endorsement– see R. Shalom C. Spira, 5th edition, A:26) Rav Chaim Zimbalist, Rav Reiss, Rav Shachter, Rav Willig, and many others – there are many who are parve or opposed to it.

          Rav Aviner, one of the leading daati leumi poskim in Israel opposes the prenup and quotes Rav Shternbuch of the eidah hachareidis as saying that it could lead to what would be tantamount to a coerced get (based on the Rashba above).

          Regarding Rav Elyashiv’s view, it gets a little interesting. One of the central debates surrounding the prenup is the issue of asmachta –a commitment that is dependent on other factors and toward which the agree-er does not really expect to happen. A groom signing this document on his happiest day likely can’t truly and honestly imagine getting into a disagreement with his new bride let alone divorcing her! Therefore, perhaps, anything he agrees to in a prenup is voided!

          While many debate this issue back-and-forth, Rav Willig proves from a teshuvah of Rav Elyahsiv (1:163) that this type of asmachta would be of no concern. However elsewhere, ironically, it is Rav Elyahsiv himself -in a latter teshuva in his next volume – who seems to disallow the entire enterprise of such prenups to begin with!

          IV. Lakewood & Beyond?

          Most in Lakewood do not sign these agreements. Some roshei yeshiva tell their students to go out of their way to avoid them. ON matters of such import, they feel, change must come from an overriding consensus of gedolei hador.

          However, all agree that on this matter of prenups, boruch Hashem, all parties involved are talmidei chachamim par excellence and lshem shomayim.

          Consensus, should it come at all, will take time.

          In the meantime, each of us should simply follow our own rebbeim on the matter.

          The goal of this monograph was simply so each talmud can understand the views of their friends who happen to have other rebbeim. So as to avoid machlokos.

          Regrettably, I have heard comments surrounding this topic akin to ‘I guess Lakewood doesn’t take the cause of agunos seriously’, or, ‘The Modern-Orthodox are once-again seeking to “fix” halacha‘. Such statements are not only ugly caricatures, but a perversion of the holy reality, and, it may be a violation of chazal who warned of using Torah/halacha as a dagger or spade (avos 4:5; nedarim 62a)[4].

          Let us hope that our respect for the halachik process will be a zechus toward the agunos of today and help prevent any agunah of tomorrow.

          NOTES:

          1 –Pri Chadash aside.
          A few years ago, someone showed me a package with a hechsher from a rabbanut in a small town in Israel, wishing to know its reliability. I gave a quick ‘No’. “How can you know so fast? Do you know their policies?” he gently challenged. I explained, “Listen, it may be fine. Indeed, some rabbanuts and their products I may eat myself. However, in this case, I saw a clue that speaks to concerns. On this package {of dairy Cheetos} they write, ‘Under the hashgacha of the rabbanut of x…this product is cholov akum…’! Cholov akum?! Gevalt! While perhaps an error on the part of the printer, it is highly suspect of kashrus ignorance”.

          2-The famous story of Rav Gifter, the late Rish Yeshiva of Telshe, Cleveland, comes to mind. This event greatly effected the many students who had witnessed it. Rav Gifter was once giving his shiur and focusing on a complicated question Rav Akiva Eiger asked on the gemara at hand. Like many Chiddushai Rav Akiva Eiger, this question was left unanswered. In the midst of explaining Rav Eiger’s strong question, Rav Gifter suddenly shut his gemara and left the room. He went directly into his office, locked the door, and did not leave for several hours. The next day by shiur, he opened by explaining his actions from the day before. “While I was repeating Rav Eiger’s brilliant question, I suddenly thought of a perfect solution; a way to avoid all of his difficulties while keeping the gemara perfectly intact. But then I thought to myself, ‘My answer seems so clear, so correct, how could it be that Rav Eiger himself would have missed it?! So, I went to my office to see where I had gone wrong, and did not leave until I was satisfied that I was indeed wrong”! Rav Gifter then preceded to repeat Rav Eiger’s question, explain his own answer, and then explain, brilliantly, why it was wrong. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it serves to make the greater point.

          3 -I can now reveal this to be Rav Nota Greenblatt tz”l. He also shared that he can’t imagine this wuld ever have its desired effect in reality or secular court. I have since heard that indeed it has been tried in court and was in fact held up.

          4- My wife once was sent a podcast or video of some type where a woman was making just such a claim. My wife was aghast as her ‘Lakewood-musmuch‘ husband was, at that moment, driving around with Rav Nota and knocking on doors seeking to find a recalcitrant husband. Indeed, Rav Nota alone liekley saved 20,000 agunos!

        2. ‘Enuf Sed’

          ‘Enuf Sed’

          Spelling, Pronunciation, & Halacha

          An Aide To Hilchos Brachos and Shabbos

          The English language has many nuscha’os. The following history is not only fascinating, but it will serve to highlight the kedushah and gadlus of Lashon Hakodesh—and it will also provide a springboard for a great hilchos Shabbos question.

          Until the advent of the printing press, most people were illiterate. Books were rare; they were handwritten and often chained to the wall. By the sixteenth century, the English language was still relatively in its infancy. Official rules of spelling, grammar, and syntax were, for practical purposes, nonexistent. See here where this realty effects the laws of gittin.

          In the 1700s, all of this began to change. By then, the civilized world had nearly perfected the art of printing and bookbinding. The average person soon became fascinated by the published word, whether in books or in newspapers. But reading and writing in English were complicated endeavors as there was no uniform spelling, and even letter forms had not yet been universally determined. For example, the I and the J were not yet distinct from each other.

          This vacuum of standards was filled by Samuel Johnson, who took ten years to complete A Dictionary of the English Language. It was published in 1755, and it is a feat still celebrated as “one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship ever performed by one individual” (Walter Bate, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of a 1977 biography of Johnson).

          Such an undertaking was highly subjective. For instance, Johnson gave us not only the spelling and definition of his occupation, “lexicographer,” but added his own editorial comment: “A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.”

          Consistent in his somewhat morose approach, he defines “dull” as “not exhilarating; not delightful; as ‘To make dictionaries is dull work.’”

          So why haven’t most readers ever heard of Johnson? Enter Noah Webster of Merriam-Webster fame, who upstaged him.

          A radical patriot and former editor for Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party, Webster wanted to break away from European culture and popularized the term “American values.” In his opinion, those values included spelling and grammar. Hence the title for his 1786 volume The American Spelling Book.

          In 1826 he completed his magnum opus, patriotically titled An American Dictionary of the English Language. Webster learned close to thirty languages during his research!

          Among his “American values” were simplified phonetic spellings. He kept the k in words such as back and luck but expunged it from most others, such as musick (music) and publick (public). In addition, the suffix re changed to er, turning mastre into master. Popular opinion backed him, but remnants of this battle are still evident in the British spelling of words such as centre and theatre.

          {Interestingly. the most public remnant of his phonetic system is in team sports – White Sox and Red Sox, spelled that way (and not ‘socks’), largely, due to the editor of The Chicago Tribune being an advocate for Webster}

          Initially—and to the relief of the British—Webster was not much of a salesman and sold only a few copies of his dictionary. It was only after his death in 1843 that the Merriam brothers purchased the exclusive rights to it, and Merriam-Webster was born.

          The British were enraged and fought back, engendering perhaps the most boring national crisis in history. But Webster’s spellings and definitions soon influenced even the formidable British OED, the Oxford English Dictionary.

          Webster did fail, however, in his desire to simplify spelling and make it more phonetic. He was hoping for soop (soup), tung (tongue), and iland (island), but these and others never materialized.

          Further demonstrating the fluidity of language, this dor haflagah continued into the twentieth century. In 1906, Mark Twain and other American notables founded the Simplified Spelling Board. Their goal was to streamline spelling and pare it down to essentials—for example, det (debt) and giv (give). But that’s a story for another time.

          Why am I sharing all of this? Aside from my history itch, there are a number of lessons here.

          As a bachur, I once met a young talmid chacham named Natan Gamedze. He was born an African prince, and his family’s wealth afforded him an ideal education that was largely language-focused; in fact, he spoke 13 languages.

          In school one day, he saw a boy writing “backward” and asked about it. The boy was writing Hebrew. Intrigued, he asked for a tutor to teach him this ancient tongue.

          He was soon amazed to discover that this language was unlike any other. All other languages were composed of an arbitrary phonetic system and an even more arbitrary system of definition and meaning. Not this one! He recognized that Hebrew words represented the very essence of whatever they described, expressing innate truths.

          Not only was each word’s root, spelling, and meaning unchanging—and unchangeable by human intervention—but its source was Divine. Even the shapes of the letters and their placement in a word held untold mysteries.

          This was what prompted him to start down the path toward becoming a ger tzedek.

          In fact, I once heard from a reliable source that ArtScroll’s bestselling single volume (aside from Gemaras and siddurim) is The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk, a master treatise on this subject.

          There’s a nugget of mussar here. The ability to master the “King’s English” is grand, and many American gedolim, such as Rav Mordechai Gifter, demanded nothing less from their talmidim. But it is no comparison at all to the language of the King of kings. We mustn’t forget that English is recent, arbitrary, and often political. Lashon Hakodesh, in contrast,is Divine.

          This brings us to a halachic issue.

          For many years now, whenever I have the zechus to give a shiur on hilchos brachos, I always start with the same introduction: “Imagine that you are Mr. Noah Webster. How would you define the word ‘bread’ succinctly?”

          Participants quickly volunteer definitions, such as “baked dough.” I then ask, “So pretzels are bread? What about cake?” I then explain that often, the first step in understanding a halachah is knowing the main term’s unchanging definition. Here is the one for bread: “Any of the five grains, ground, mixed into a dough, and baked. If brittle, heavily sweetened or stuffed, it has bread potential if eaten as or during a meal’s mainstay.”

          With this approach, a 30-word definition crystallizes many sh’eilos.

          What about a granola bar? The debate is whether the definition should omit the word “ground.” What about soft pretzels? The sh’eilah is whether the definition of “pretzel” should begin with “a non-snack item made with any of the five grains.”

          Defining the word lechem will also explain why spaghetti and meatballs would never require a Hamotzi even though we make a meal out of it—and that’s because Chazal define bread, or potential bread, as baked, and spaghetti is not.

          With Lashon Hakodesh, we are searching for Divine definition. This does not apply if, l’havdil, we are seeking simply to distinguish between the English words “envy” and “jealousy,” synonyms that developed from the way people used them and not from any Divine truth. 

          Another example comes from a wonderful sh’eilah I recently received: May one use Crest White Strips on Shabbos?

          To answer the sh’eilah with clarity, defining the relevant Torah terms is imperative. For this reason, the poskim debate every definition they give. For example, the melachah of knotting differs from that of sewing, even though they both refer to the joining of two pliable entities. The poskim therefore seek to distill the definition of each melachah down to its essence.

          In the case of White Strips, there may be more than one melachah involved, each with a precise definition. These include melaben (laundering), tofer (sewing or gluing), and tzovei’a (coloring). For several reasons, I feel the only concern here is tzovei’a, even though some strips work by bleaching the teeth.

          But how is coloring defined, and would brightening a preexisting color fall under that definition?

          The poskim discuss at length the definition of coloring (see, for example, the Steipler Gaon in Kehillas Yaakov, Shabbos, #40). According to a number of poskim, it seems that coloring includes the enhancement of an existing color. So if one wanted to shine his black shoes with oil so that the color would be more pronounced, that too might be considered coloring (see Yerushalmi, Shabbos, 7:2; see Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah, 14:154).

          Please consult your rav…and perhaps a Hebrew dictionary as well! ●

        3. Tefillin, Chol HaMoed, & Lo Tisgodedu

          Tefillin, Chol HaMoed, & Lo Tisgodedu

          The One-Man Mechitzah

          “Don’t ask Rabbi Taub a sh’eilah unless you’ve cleared your schedule” was a joke one year in the Purim grammen in shul.

          There’s some truth to this. My desire to explain the background to a psak comes in no small part from my own need for chazarah.  There  are other motives as well.

          There is a well-known concept that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Over the years, many of the halachic adventures I’ve shared in Ami Magazine have fallen into this category. 

          A simple illustration is the myth that a utensil does not need tevilah before its first use. This error seems to come from the fact that a disposable metal pan meant for one-time use only does not require tevilah. This“little” piece of information somehow led some people to believe that any first-time of a utensil is permitted without tevilah.

          Not true! 
          Instead, the fact that the metal pan will be discarded after its first use means that it is not considered a real kli; it has nothing to do with first-time use.

          During Sukkos, I saw this principle in action again. The following episode is the newest example to explain why I can sometimes be verbose in my answers to sh’eilos. 

          I was away with my family for Sukkos and was a stranger at a minyan on the second day of Chol Hamoed. The Shacharis crowd was a mix of chasidim and Litvaks, modern and yeshivish—a typical vacation Chol Hamoed minyan.
          Some wore tefillin on Chol Hamoed and some didn’t, and the shul’s rav was supportive of these diverse minhagim being observed together, and at the same time.

          I found a nice quiet corner in the back in which to daven, when, right before shemoneh esreh, I noted a peculiar sight: A bachur took two rolling mechitzos, set them up near the wall to form a triangle, and started the Amidah in his newly-created segregated corner.

          After Hallel, I heard one man joke, “Maybe he’s in cherem.” Another man responded, “Maybe he has tzaraas!”

          In truth, this young man meant well, but because he had limited information, his good intentions failed him. In order to understand why, some background information is necessary.

          Although everyone agrees that we do not wear tefillin on Shabbos or Yom Tov, Chazal do not offer a definitive practice for chol Hamoed. This has resulted in a number of disparate—and strongly held—shittos. 
          The Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed.The Rema disagrees, saying that it is actually a chiyuv.

          While most who wear tefillin on CholHamoed do not recite a brachah, some do. This creates the separate issue of whether those who wear tefillin with a brachah should do so in a whisper so as not to cause division among those who don’t (see Shulchan Aruch, OrachChaim, siman 31, “nosei keilim”).

          But what should one do if a shul’s minhag is to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoedbut he doesn’t, or vice versa?

          The Chofetz Chaim rules that in such a case, one should follow the custom of the shul (ad loc. se’if 8). This is due to the prohibition of “Lo tisgodedu,” not causing machlokes within a group setting (Rambam, et al.; cf. Rishonim, who give other reasons for this prohibition). 

          When I was growing up, the minhag in my father’s shul was not to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, and those who did either went elsewhere or davened behind the mechitzah. Other shuls in Toronto had the same policy.

          Over time, however, many shuls began to allow people with both minhagim to Daven together on Chol Hamoed. 
          According to this approach, what happened to the prohibition of “Lo tisgodedu”?

          A contemporary of the Chofetz Chaim wrote, “In his sefer Mishnah Brurah, my dear friend, the gaon Rav Meir of Radin,says that [allowing] those who wear tefillinand those who don’t to daven together isnot appropriate [but not actually assur].This is because when people are simply acting out of doubt about what thehalachah is, it is not clear that this is actually a violation of ‘Lo tisgodedu’ (SdeiChemed, Chol Hamoed, 14).

          Rav Moshe Feinstein went one step further. 

          Before technology and its ease of communication, some had no idea about minhagim in other locations. One’s bris took place in his shul and then his bar mitzvah; he davened there daily, the shul hosted his wedding, etc. making the average person wholly unacquainted with the minhagim in and of other communities. This being the case, one was liable to view any practice that was dissimilar to his shul’s as being in violation of halachah.

          Today it is vastly different. Most people have davened in many different shuls, and even within their own minyanim there are often Jews of all backgrounds. In this melting pot, the mispallelim are aware of the different tefillin minhagim, and a concern about causing machlokes is not necessarily relevant (Igros Moshe, OrachChaim, 5:24;6).

          The sincere bachur whom I saw in shul on Chol Hamoed had no doubt learned theMishnah Brurah advising one to davenseparately if his minhag is different from the shul’s. Seeing the mixed group, he must have thought to himself, “Since I’m wearing tefillin but the chazzan and the ravare not, I have to at least daven behind a mechitzah.”

          In fact, I know that’s what he was thinking…because I asked him directly. I then explained to him gently that he had unintentionally caused a “scene” among the regulars in the minyan. I told him that the Netziv once said, “Some people run from the mouth of a fox into the mouth of a lion,” meaning that a person may sometimes think he is being machmir in one area when in reality he is causing a breach in another. In this case, the purpose of thechumrah of davening separately is to avoid machlokes by not acting in opposition tothe established minhag.

          “In this case, the mara d’asra allows the participation of those who wear tefillin on CholHamoed,” Explaining, “By creating a mechitzah, you are actually disrupting the very harmony that you intended to protect.” 

          I immediately apologized to him if I had come across as harsh or pedantic, defending myself by sharing, “I heard people making comments and thought you-looking like a budding Talmud chacham– would want to be made aware of the halachic background”.

          It was another great example of how a little information can be a dangerous thing. 

          It is known that Rav Moshe Feinstein (and others) pasken that if one davens regularly in a shul with strong established minhagim, he should follow them—even regarding tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

          On that note, we will conclude with the following story:

          Rav Kalman Winter, a”h, founded the Young Israel of Buffalo in the 1970s. He called Rav Moshe regarding every aspect of the shul, its construction, mechitza, etc.
          Once complete, he once called asking, “The members here don’t wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed. Should that be the minhag of the shul?”

          “Absolutely,” the gadol responded.

          “But I am the rav.”

          “So?” asked Rav Moshe.

          “Well, my minhag is to wear tefillin,”Rav Winter said.

          Rav Moshe laughed and responded, “Not anymore!”

          Meaning, in that case, the rav had to yield to the minhagim of his own shul.