Talking

I recently heard a story from the protagonist, which is as good an indicator of truthfulness as any I know of.

A young South African gay Jewish man got HIV, in the days when getting HIV was essentially a death sentence. The young man's doctor didn't know whether he should tell him or not, so he asked everyone he knew, including, as it turns out, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Now, I'm not sure exactly what they told the Rebbe, but I do know what the answer was: "Tell him he's got it." Or something along those lines.

What does this mean? I'm not sure. I guess it's not a surprise that the Rebbe dealt with questions like this, and I don't know that I'd expect a different answer, but still. It has to mean something, right?

Midnight wonderings

If they had known about this back in the day, would Reb Yehuda Hanasi have had thirteen years of toothaches taken away?

Prince of Bloomington

I know I've been remiss in my blogging over the last year or so, but hey, I've been busy. I also know that I may have offended some people at some point in the last year, and for that I'm sorry. Even if it wasn't intentional, it wasn't nice, and as everyone knows, TRS is all about being nice. I don't G-d forbid rue the performance of good deeds, i.e. I don't regret not blogging, because I was probably busy with other, more important things.

Meanwhile, in other news, I was recently emailed some interesting shtuff by a loyal reader, and I'd like to know all your's opinion on the matter.

Virtual Mincha - A Taste of the Future?

The Jerusalem Post recently published an article about a new phenomenon in the Jewish world: virtual mincha. Although many synagogues now webcast services for people who can't make it to schul in person, two new websites are creating Jewish communities that are 100% online.
PunkTorah.org was created by two young Jews in Atlanta who hosted their first online prayer service in June, while Cincinnati based OurJewishCommunity.org is led by Rabbi Laura Baum. Both websites aim to bring Jews together regardless of geographic location. "I can be your rabbi even if you're not in Cincinnati," says Rabbi Baum. "We are your rabbis and this is your community."
While online prayer groups meet the needs of those unable to get together in person, they also raise questions. As the JPost article notes, certain prayers require a minyan - a group of 10 Jewish adults - in order for the prayer to be recited. "But in an age of webcams and the Internet telephone service Skype," said Jewish Jumpstar founder Shawn Landres said, "spatial relations become altered and who's to say what 'together' means?"
---
Here's the question: At what point does Chabad.org start up a similar thing?

Quick question

If the Rabbis had known then what we know now, would they have made the washing of the hands with soap following a visit to the lavatory mandatory?

As is my usual wont, I merely inquire.

Dairy days

At some point in the not-so distant past Nemo said that he missed the good 'ol days, when serious discussion took place on this here blog. As I was perusing an old post I noticed that he (check out that beard!) indeed had a point- the conversation on this blog was at one point on a higher intellectual level. What happened? Ich vais nisht. Maybe it was the girls. After all, the first one wasn't even outed until I was with Yossi in CT. Speaking of that, I'm sure we're all very excited that Sebastion and Penelope can finally live ever after happily. Meanwhile, it was just about two short years ago that e, Tanyachaz, and I were planning our trip to Israel. Good times, eh? So much has changed since then, and yet so much has remained the same.

Anyway, way back when, I wrote a post that didn't quite turn out the way it should have. As Nemo commented at the time, "Sorry, was a little hard to follow and there were a number of disconnects in the explanation." Here's a (slightly edited) version.

Yesterday (May 28, 2008) I came across an interesting item in the Sefer Taamei Minhagim Umkorei Hadinim by Rabbi Moshe Sperling. He brings down the Rokeach who states that the consumption of dairy products was, until the giving of the Torah, forbidden, and so when the the Torah was given the Jews celebrated by eating cheesecake.

Why was dairy forbidden in the first place? Because it's Aiver Min Hachai, i.e. a limb from a living animal. I thought, "Hey, that's a really cool answer!" and determined to track down the source, which turned out to be the Gemara in Bechoros, which thanks to Artscroll I didn't have to break my head over. A lot of what I'm going to write now is based on their translation and commentary; as far as I can recall there's no prohibition involved, but if there is....

The Gemara on 6B (2, for those keeping score with their Artscrolls) states that we would have thought that a person can use milk from a non-Kosher animal, because we're allowed to use milk from a Kosher animal. The Gemara brings two reasons for this: The first is that milk is made from blood, which is normally prohibited. When Hashem permitted blood, we would think that he permitted milk (transformed blood) from all creatures. Therefore the Torah has to specifically lay down the law. There is a problem with this answer according to one opinion (look it up), so the Gemara brings the additional rationale that since Hashem permitted us to use a "limb" (milk) from a living Kosher animal, we would think he permitted us to use a "limb" (milk) from any living animal. This is why the Torah has to specify that dairy from a non-Kosher source is prohibited.

Milk being a "limb" is pretty hard to understand, because it seems to be a separate entity; therefore many Acharonim say that the Gemara holds there should be a problem with dairy because it's from an animal that hasn't been shechted properly.

I don't understand why this would answer the question. According to the simple way of learning the Gemara, the problem is that the milk is a "limb", and eating dairy from a live animal would seem to be forbidden. According to the way the Acharonim explain it, the problem is that you're eating something which wasn't shechted properly. It's a problem to eat something which wasn't shechted properly because it's (the milk) considered to be...what? If shechting solves the problem, why is this called Aiver Min Hachai by the Gemara? It's entirely a problem of schechita. The Gemara seems to be saying that the reason we're allowed to eat dairy is because the prohibition of Aiver Min Hachai was relaxed by Hashem in the case of Kosher milk.
The Gemara implies that before Matan Torah dairy from a dead animal was permitted. According to the Acharonim, would that mean that before Matan Torah only dairy from a properly shechted animal was permitted? In general, are non-Jews nowadays allowed to have milk? It would seem that they can only have milk from a dead animal; after all, we got the Torah which allows to have dairy from a live cow, but non-Jews didn't get the Torah. According to the Acharonim, this wouldn't seem to be a problem, because non-Jews are only commanded to not eat a limb from a living animal; they have nothing to do with shechita.

Before the giving of the Torah, what was the issue according to the Acharonim? They say that the issue is shechita. Before Matan Torah, no one kept shechita anyway, because there were no Jews to shecht. In general, with regards to meat, I assume that they ate meat that post-Matan Torah is not permitted. So before Matan Torah, the Acharonim would allow a non-Jew to have dairy from any dead animal, while a Jew could only have from a Kosher animal (remember, they kept all the laws of the Torah before Matan Torah). After Matan Torah, without the Torah's special dispensation, a Jew is only allowed dairy from a properly slaughtered animal. A non-Jew can have dairy from any dead animal, since they don't have a problem with eating non-properly slaughtered animals. With the Torah's dispensation, a Jew can have dairy from a live Kosher animal, though it has not been shechted.

I don't understand how allowing dairy from an animal which has not been properly slaughtered is the same as allowing dairy from a living animal. It seems that the Acharonim are merely allowing us to have dairy from a properly shechted animal.

The simple explanation of the Gemara makes a lot more sense (in my humble [and probably deficient] opinion. Before Matan Torah, all milk from dead animals was permitted; after the giving of the Torah, milk from a live Kosher animal was permitted.

Non-Jews still seem to have a problem, because the Torah did not permit them to have milk from a live animal, whether Kosher or non-Kosher, but this is not my problem.

Anyway, the Gemara asks a simple question: How do we know that the Torah allowed us to have milk from a Kosher animal? It brings several proofs, quickly knocks them away, and ends with three Pesukim from which to learn the dispensation. The first is in 1 Samuel, 17:18, where David was given cheese from his father Yishai for his brothers on the battlefield. This verse only seems to prove that dairy is permitted, but it's not Hashem coming down with fire and brimstone and saying, "Thou mayest eateth the milk of thine beasts!" The next Passuk is from Shemos 3:17, "A land flowing with milk and honey." Would Hashem praise the land with forbidden items? This verse seems to be more in the vein of a command, but it's still not the same. The third Passuk is from Isiah 55:1, where he tells people to go buy and eat milk, implying that it's fine.

3000 years is a long time

The following is an exchange which has recently occurred on frumsatire.net between yours truly and someone named Aviva Larev. Admittedly, it's not much of an exchange at the moment, but I'm certainly hoping for some feedback.

Aviva Larev May 7, 2010 at 12:21 AM

TRS, that same old argument is dumb. Because 3000 years ago and continuing people were ignorant, racist, cruel and evil. THANK GOD for change, would you rather all Christians still murder Jews because that was their “tradition” for so many thousands of years!? Jeez what backwards logic. “Doesn’t matter if its real, matters that its old” Yea so if we found out some TRUTH say, some revelation that proves some of these pointless rules are garbage you wouldn’t want to change it then?! I really LOVE how so many Jews get stuck on the (seriously) dumbest littlethings and seem to forget the ENTIRE idea behind it. Tradition means nothing if all it does is perpetrate ignorance. No effing thanks.

--

TRS May 7, 2010, at 11:15 AM

Wow, what a blast from the past, eh? When is this post originally, from, January 26, 2009? That's nearly a year and a half ago! Remarkable. Anyway, to respond to your harsh accusation... Of course, I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring, because my last comment on this particular forum was so many moons ago, but I seem to get the general gist of your argument. It appears (to me at least) that you are saying something along the lines of, "The times they are a'changing, get with the program."

Obviously, everyone is entitled to do whatever they want to do. I can go on Mivtzoyim and try to get you to light Shabbos candles, but if you're not interested, you're not interested. If you think that the divine pronouncement from Sinai was not eternal, then good for you. Hey, if you don't think there ever was a divine pronouncement from Sinai, then good for you too. We can deal with that.

What you say, "Change we can believe in," is certainly a wonderful thing, but it doesn't quite solve any of your problems. Evidently, you don't like that Judaism is based on a 3000 year old tradition. Evidently you believe that Judaism should be something different. Or else you don't think there should be any Judaism. Holding these opinions is certainly your right, but coupled with your apparent intention, to reform Judaism, they make no sense.

Judaism is nothing without the Torah. I think we can all agree this point. In other words, without the Torah, there is no Judaism. I think we can all agree this point. Changing Judaism means changing Torah. Changing Torah means changing Judaism. Are you still with me here? Excellent.

You say something about Christians still slaughtering Jews. In my mind, there is no problem with this- if Christians believe that killing Jews is what JC would have wanted, then good for them. Evidently they don't have this belief anymore, which is, I suppose, a good thing for the Jews. Obviously, the Christian belief system is not eternal (for more on this topic, see here: http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/search/label/Stephen%20Fry ). Which is fine. It's the Christian's religion, let them practice it however they see fit.

You may not, and again I repeat, you may not use the same logic regarding Judaism. Judaism is very different from Christianity. Even if it were not very different at all, there would still be the fundamental difference, that of the revelation at Sinai. Those who practice Judaism must base their religion on this revelation. Whether they are Sephardi or Ashkenazi, Chassidic or Misnagdic, they're practices and beliefs are solely based on the Torah as it was presented at Sinai 3000 years ago. They may not do everything, they may not even believe in everything, but if they question the validity of something vis a vis it's being part of the tradition, and they can't prove it, then they are beyond the pale. I can accept that bullet proof stockings are not mandated by the Torah. I can not accept that the Torah does not proscribe homosexuality.

Does this make us a mean religion? Possibly. Probably. But I'm not sure what you'd like us to do about it. Shall we change certain parts of our religion based on the prevailing mores? Shall we change inconvenient laws we do based on the latest fads? If you want to do this, kol hakavod, but it's not orthodox Judaism. So again, I'm not sure what you'd like us to do about this.

Moving along in your argument, you state something along the lines of, "If there's new truth, will you change what you've been doing?" Obviously, there will be no new truth. There was only one revelation at Sinai. When Moshiach comes our understanding of the revelation will be infinitely greater than it currently is, but it will still be the same revelation. So no, I don't think we have to plan for the contingency of a possible "new truth". In general, that seems to be an oxymoron, doesn't it? If something is true, it is always true. Just saying.

Next, we have the charge that Jews get "stuck" on the "dumbest little things" while ignoring "the entire idea behind it." I would be the first to agree that Judaism does appear to be OCD about everything. This is not, of course, a bad thing. I'm not sure that I'd characterize homosexuality as a "dumb little thing," however- after all, if G-d saw fit to prohibit it, then it's probably not a "dumb little thing" but a very major intelligent thing. We are not G-d, and presumably he knows what he's talking about.

Your final point is that traditional Judaism perpetrates (I assume you meant, "perpetuates") ignorance. I wonder what you mean by this. Do you mean that traditional Jews are ignorant? Knowing, as I do, many hundreds of traditional Jews, I find this hard to believe. If we choose not to cover ourselves in the slime of current culture, why, that is hardly ignorance, it is nobility. The fact that we choose to spend our time in the depths of the Talmud and not in the depths of the current moral depravity is hardly ignorance.

Say it ain't so!

Everyone knows that it's a big merit to marry the daughter of a talmid chacham. After all, what's the first question out of your lips when the shadchan comes a'calling about this great girl from a fine family? You don't ask if she's highly attractive, if her parents invested their life savings with Warren Buffett in 1964, or if her brothers were MVPs of their basketball teams at Camp Haka in 1994. No my friends, you ask if her father is a genuine, A-OK, 100 percent American certified Talmid Chacham. Oh yeah.

Well folks, sorry to burst your bubble, but you were born about five hundred years too late. Why? Because there are no talmidei chachamim nowadays.

For example, a Jew is not allowed to go to sleep on a boat that's tied to the bank of a river on shabbos if he knows that a non-Jew will come along and row, row, row that boat gently down the stream and over to the other bank. Why not? Because he knows the non-Jew is gonna come and move that momma-who is he fooling?

On the other hand, a talmid chacham is allowed to sleep there, or to say he's going to sleep there, even though he knows full well that when he "wakes up" he's going to find himself on a new side of town. Why? Go look it up (מסכת שבת קלט עמוד ב). However, nowadays this isn't permitted, because there ain't no talmidei chachamim who can pull stunts like this.

So now you're gonna say, "Hey boy, wait a minute there, there's only no talmidei chachamim who can pull a stunt like that-but just regular old plain talmidei chachamim with eligible daughters? There's plenty of those! (c.f. New Jersey, Lakewood)" Well sorry to rock your boat wiseguy, but you're wrong.

In the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (סימן שיד, הלכה כ) it says that a talmid chacham is allowed to plug a hole in a barrel with a piece of food and say that he's doing it to protect the food, when in reality he's doing it to protect whatever's inside the barrel. Even if this talmid chacham doesn't use the legal fiction it's not really so bad, because covering the barrel for the purposes of covering a barrel is only forbidden by the rabbis (under the prohibition of fixing a vessel). Besides, this guy's a talmid chacham, he wouldn't do something like this without employing a legal fiction anyway.

However, it is forbidden for an עם הארץ to do this, because we don't trust him to employ a legal fiction when he's doing it. Basically, the guy has no clue what he's doing, and the chances of him saying the right things to the right people at the right time are practically nil.

There are some (the Rambam among them) who permit even an עם הארץ to do this trick, and we rely on these words for a talmid chacham, even though for everything else there aren't any talmidei chachamim left.

What does this mean? That's right folks, ain't no stopping us now! I mean, it means that for all practical purposes (besides for closing holes in barrels with chicken bones) there are no talmidei chachamim left. Yup, next time some poor Bobover chosson comes up to you in 770 begging for money for his chasuna, claiming that his father is a big talmid chacham and has seventeen kids besides, tell him he's a liar!

Then give him five bucks, because that's the nice thing to do.

Tachanun III: What to do

As promised, here's part two (or is it part three?) about Tachanun, that most glorious of Jewish penitential prayers. As always, remember to consult your local orthodox ehrlicher rav before doing anything based on anything written by anyone anywhere.

שלחן ערוך הרב סימן קלא, דיני נפילת אפים

Halacha 5: The custom is not to say tachanun in the house of a chosson (groom), on the day he enters the chuppah (gets married), since it's a yom tov for him. Tachanun is also not said in shul on the day of a bris mila, since the Jews accepted the commandment of bris mila with joy. We also do not say tachanun when a chosson is present in shul, and also not in the house of a mourner, since the seven days of mourning are compared to the seven days of rejoicing with regards to forbidden activities, as the verse states (Amos 8, 10), "And I will turn over their rejoicing to mourning," and all this also applies by the extra penitential prayers said on Monday and Thursday.

Even after one leaves the house of a chosson or mourner and comes to his own house tachanun need not be said, since he's right now holding immediately after Shemone Esrei (evidently he left the house right after the repetition of the amidah), and since he skipped tachanun in its proper place (immediately following Shemone Esrei) he has skipped it entirely (i.e. once a person doesn't say tachanun, he doesn't have to go back and say it once the condition preventing him from sayng tachanun departs), and this is also the law for the extra penitential prayers said on Mondays and Thursdays, which are, according to the custom in our country (Lithuania) every single day, said before nefilas apayim, even though they are obligated to be said, as explained in Siman 134 (unlike nefilas apayim, which is a custom, as explained in the previous post on tachanun).

Nevertheless, since the obligation is only by custom, and nowadays we don't say them in the time of their being obligated (every single day), when they are said immediately following the amidah before nefilas apayim, therefore once they are prevented from being said (as explained above) they need not be made up later in the day.

On Rosh Chodesh, where the custom is not to say hallel in the house of a mourner, every person should say hallel by himself when he comes to his house, since hallel is a mivtza the entire day, and its not mandatory to say it immediately following the amidah, as we see that sometimes it's obligatory to say it before the amidah (Siman 122), and it need not be said immediately following the amidah since its time is the whole day, even for a single person davening on Rosh Chodesh. The only reason we say it immediately following the amidah under normal circumstances is because of the general rule of "The diligent perform mitzvos at the first available opportunity." Another reason is that hallel is not comparable to the extra penitential prayers said on Mondays and Thursdays, since once those prayer's obligation is nullified (because the person was in the house of a mourner, and a mourner need not say them because he's considered to be in a festival [with regards to forbidden activities]). Hallel is different, however, because the reason it's not said is because of the mourning present in the house, and we don't want to say (Psalms 116, 17), "The dead do not praise you, Hashem," and it would appear as if we're making fun of the dead. Therefore it's necessary to leave the house and recite hallel, just as we find by someone who is making a journey and comes upon graves, that immediately after he finishes the amidah he must distance himself and recite the hallel, so that it doesn't appear that he's making fun of the dead.

When does this apply? By the hallel of Rosh Chodesh, which is only obligated by custom. The only time we say hallel in a mourner's house is on Chanuka, which is an obligation from the Rabbis, and a mourner is also obligated to say it. The custom is, however, that a mourner within thirty days, or if his parents passed away then within twelve months, doesn't act as chazzan for hallel because the congregation is then happy like on Shabbos and the festivals.

Halacha 6: We don't say tachanun on the day of a bris mila when davening in the shul where the bris mila will take place, but in another shul (in town) we do say it. In the winter, when circumcisions take place in the home, the custom is not to say tachanun in the shul where the person making the bris is davening. All this is talking about shacharis, before the bris happens, but by mincha, even if the baby is present, we say tachanun.

On the other hand, tachanun is not said when praying by a chosson the whole day, or if one comes to daven in a shul on the day when the chosson goes under the chuppah (to get married). There are places where the custom is for grooms to not attend shul on the day (or a couple days before) they get married so that the congregation is not prevented from saying tachanun. If the chosson does go to shul then tachanun is said, except on the day of the wedding.

There are those who have the custom to not say tachanun the whole seven days when the chosson is in shul, because all seven days are for him like a festival. On the eighth day tachanun is also not said by shacharis because the chuppah happened close to the evening, and seven full days are not completed until the evening of the eighth day.

There are places which have the custom to also not say tachanun by mincha when davening with the circumscised baby. However, in the shul we do say tachanun, even though the person who made the bris is present. On shabbos we say Tzidkascha Tzedek even if the seudas mitzva is only made that night.

Tachanun II: Knowledge is Power

Astute readers will surely recall my writing regarding tachanun. I decided to take a peak at the relevant halachos again, and I'm happy to present, for your edification, the laws of Tachanun II: Knowledge is Power.

שלחן ערוך הרב סימן קלא, דיני נפילת אפים

Halacha 1: After the Chazzan finishes the repetition of the amidah the congregation falls on their faces and requests mercy (ומתחננים), every place according to its custom. The whole concept of tachanun is only a minhag that Israel had the custom of doing from the earliest days, and nevertheless it's not an obligation, it's a matter of choice (רשות). Therefore all it's halachos are dependent on minhag, as will be explained.

Tachanun must be said immediately following tefilah (shemone esrei), and if a person pauses and does other things after tefilah (before tachanun) then his tachanun is not accepted as much. Therefore a person should not talk between shemone esrei and tachanun (even though according to Halacha there's no prohibition here, since tachanun is רשות). We are only worried here about doing entirely different things, but a little speech is allowed. Anyone who doesn't pause to deal with extraneous matters at all can go to another place and fall there on his face.

The main falling upon the face (נפילת אפים) that was done from the earliest days is to fall upon one's face on the ground, even without placing there his hands and feet (including sitting on the ground and falling on his face). It isn't fitting for an important person to behave like this when he's in front of (davening with) the congregation if the congregation doesn't do it also (i.e. don't try to be too frum) unless he is so confident in his deeds and knows with certainty that he will be answered like Yehoshua Bin Nun, as it says (about him), "Raise yourself up, why do you fall on your face?" (meaning that he was answered immediately by Hashem). This is because if he isn't answered immediately then the congregation will wonder about him, saying that he isn't ready or fit to be answered.

Similarly the rabbis decreed that every person is forbidden to prostrate himself on a stone floor, even if he doesn't spread out his hands and feet, because we are worried that he will completely prostate himself there, which would be a violation of the Torah (and for which he is whipped), as the verse says, "And you shall not emplace a flooring of stone upon which to prostrate oneself," as this is only permitted in the Beis Hamikdash.

Falling on the ground is forbidden, but placing your face on your side is permitted, even for an important person in front of the congregation, and even on a stone floor, without putting the hands and feet down, as was explained. In these days, when we don't actually fall upon our faces but rather put our heads down and cover our faces, none of this is applicable.

Therefore it's permitted to say tachanun even while standing, but according to Kabbalah a person should say it while sitting. If it's impossible to say it sitting while within the three steps that were taken following the shemone esrei then a person should wait the amount of time necessary to walk four amos and then return to his place and say tachanun there while sittting.

Our custom is to cover our faces with a garment, and it's not enough to merely cover with the arm upon which we fall, since the arm and the face our part of one body, and it's not possible for something to cover itself, as was explained in hilchos krias shema and shemone esrei.


The custom in many places is to lean on the left side because when a person davens the Shechinah is on his right side, as the verse states, "Hashem is your protective Shade at your right hand," and as was explained in the laws of shemone esrei. When a person rests on his left side then he is facing the right (the Shechinah), as opposed to if he leaned on the right side, in which case his back would be facing the shechinah, which would be improper, because it's not fitting for a servant to turn his back to his master.

There are those who say that it's proper to lean on the right side, because when you lean on the right side the Shechinah is opposite you, and then he will have in mind, "His left hand is under my head, and his right arm embraces me."

In these lands we have the custom to lean on our right arms by shacharis because of the honor due to the tefillin which are on the left arm. By mincha (and so too by shacharis when tefillin aren't worn on the left arm) he should lean on his left arm. The chazzan, who is standing on the right side of the ark, should tilt his his head a little even when he falls on his right side (and this is also the din of those who sit next to the menorah before the ark who lean on their faces facing east like the chazzan).

According to Kabbalah the psalm אליך ה׳ נפשי אשא (Psalms 25) should be said. One who says this and his heart is far (i.e. he is not on the level) will cause himself to die before his time. Therefore in this country we have the custom to say רחום וחנון כו׳ ה׳ אל באפיך כו׳.

(In the Siddur the Alter Rebbe says to say both.)

Halacha 2: After a person does נפילת אפים he should lift up his head and ask for mercy a bit, while sitting in his place, every place according to their custom. The basic custom is to say ואנחנו לא נדע מה נעשה וכו׳ since we davened on everything that a person is able to daven, whether sitting, standing, or leaning. This is what Moshe Rabbeinu A"H did, as the verse says, "And I sat on the mountain," and, "Then I threw myself down before Hashem." After this, since we no longer have the strength to daven in any other way, we say, "And we do not know what to do etc," and afterwords we say half-Kaddish, Ashrei, and Lamnatzeiach.

Halacha 3: There are those who have the custom to only do נפילת אפים in the presence of a Sefer Torah, and a source for this can be found in the war of Ai (Joshua 7, 6) as it says, "And [Joshua] fell on his face to the ground before the ark of Hashem." In a place where there is no Sefer Torah the custom is to say tachanun without covering the face.

The custom is to do נפילת אפים in the courtyard of a shul when the courtyard is open to the shul itself (and people daven there when the shul is open) as is done in the shul itsef. However, when part of the shul is closed off from the part that contains the Sefer Torah then the custom is not do to נפילת אפים.

The women's shul is considered to be separate in this matter from the shul with a Sefer Torah inside, and if it's not open the custom is to do נפילת אפים. However, the courtyard outside the shul has the law of a courtyard inside a shul-if it's open, you do, if it's not open, you don't.

Even one Jew davening on his own, if he davens at the same time as the congregation davening in the shul, is able to say tachanun while doing נפילת אפים. This is because he is considered to be standing with them, and even an iron curtain can not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven when there are ten Jews present, as explained in the laws of the morning blessings.

Halacha 4: There is no נפילת אפים at night, because of the known reason (to those who know), and therefore if someone postponed davening mincha until the night he shouldn't do נפילת אפים. Therefore one should skip אבינו מלכנו in order todo נפילת אפים in the day; nevertheless, one should only do this when it's certainly night, but not if it's שקיעה. The custom is to do נפילת אפים on the night of selichos since it's close to the day anyway (the chabad custom is not to do this). There are those who have the custom to lengthen selichos until it's definitely daytime, and then they do נפילת אפים.

Part 2 somewhen...

Siman 69, Halacha 19

I was wondering this afternoon, "What in the world shall I write about for tonight's post?" A few minutes later I learned the following Halacha, and I knew that my question had been answered.

Tur Shulchan Oruch: The Rambam writes that even after meat has been properly salted it's necessary to put it in boiling water before cooking it in order that all the blood remaining inside the meat will be "sealed in" and won't come out afterwords.

(The Rambam is concerned that the remaining blood in the meat will come out when the meat is cooked. If the blood is "sealed in" then the meat is kosher, because any blood remaining inside is kosher [It's generally not known {except by those who happen to be learning smicha} that meat does not have to be salted in order to be kosher. As long as all visible blood is washed off the meat it's permissible to take a bite, right then, right there. However, in order to be able to cook the meat it must be salted.])

The Tur writes that we don't have this custom (to put the meat in boiling water after salting), because once it's undergone proper salting we assume that there's no blood remaining inside the meat.

The Beis Yosef writes that since many argue with the Rambam we don't hold like him, but if it's possible to follow his words than it's good to.

Shulchan Oruch: After meat has been salted and washed it's permitted to put it even into water that is not boiling, and some require that it be put into boiling water. The Ramah says that the minhag is like the first opinion, which is the primary opinion.

The Shach, after explaining all that I said previously, says that any liquid which comes out of the meat after it's been salted is just juice, even if it's red in color.

Keeping Kosher

This past Tuesday we (the Smicha Bochurim in RCA) had a shiur with Rabbi Levi Gorelick of the OK. Here's what he said. As always, I'm responsible whenever it doesn't make sense or it's not true or whatever. Oh, and one more thing before the feature presentation. There's a new Haveil Havalim up!

Until the Rebbe, "Kashrus" meant that a Rav has to know what the laws of Kashrus. Now, after the Rebbe, Kashrus means helping Jews keep Kosher.

The Tzelimer Rav once came to the Freidiker Rebbe and asked him why he didn't open a hashgacha to help support his Yeshivos and other mosdos? The Friediker Rebbe answered him, "You're making food that's kosher, I'm making people that keep kosher."
----
Someone in Lakewood doesn't have issue of Kashrus-there's always Kosher food available. A bochur in Lubavitch, however, has to be an educated consumer. When you're on Merkos Shlichus in who know's where...

I grew up on shlichus, we had no Kosher butcher, bakery, anything. I used to go down to the fish market, watch a goy fillet a fish, grind it up, and my mother would make gefilte fish out of it.

When we wanted milk, we had to go to a farm to get milk that was chalav yisrael. We had to pasteurize it once a week, and even used to make our own cheese. Once my family went up to a farm and the farmer had just finished milking his cow, so my father said we couldn't drink it, even though my mother really needed the milk. The farmer promised that he had no other animals on the farm, but my father still wouldn't allow it. Eventually the guy admitted he also had a donkey on the farm, but even so, this was definitely cow's milk. My father still wouldn't allow us to drink it.

Reb Chaikel Chanin, a big chassid, once came to Italy and told me a story. When he was a bochur in Russia there was once a big fight in his city about who would be the next rav, a chossid or a misnaged. The local chassidim sent a delegation to the Friediker Rebbe asking for a brocha that a chossid should be appointed rov, but the Rebbe told them that they should appoint a misnaged instead! The Chassidim of course immediately dropped their opposition, and a new, misnagdishe, rov was soon appointed.

One of the local chassidim figured that something strange must be going on here, and he decided to find out what was going on. Back in those days rabbis didn't have offices, they would just set up shop in the shul and answer questions there. This chossid decided to hide under the Rov's table in the shul and figure out what was going on.

A local, non-chassidic guy came to the rov, and started to pour out his heart. He worked in a factory where the manager was a virulent anti-semite, possibly even Jewish, who made things as hard as he possibly could for his Jewish workers. He even refused to allow them to take shabbos off, threatening them that they'd lose their jobs if they tried to do such a thing. The rov listened to the man's problems, cried with him, and in the end told him that it was a matter of pikuach nefesh, and as long as he tried as hard as he could to avoid violating the laws of Shabbos he was allowed to work there.

A few minutes later a Lubavitcher walked in to the rov, and it turned out that he too had this very same problem! He poured out his tale of woe, and the Rov was deeply affected by his suffering. At the end of the conversation the Rov said, "You, a worker for the government with kids in a government school, have no heter!"

(In Russia there used to be special schools for children of government officials where they would be trained to be the next generation of government employees. The rov was saying that as a Lubavitcher, who represented mesiras nefesh, he had no heter to work in shabbos, even if it was mesiras nefesh)
------
I once took my kids up to my brother in law in New Hampshire to see how milk is actually made, i.e., that it cows from a cow, not from a container. While we were there I saw a sign that said "Pure Maple Syrup", and I decided to show my kids what Kashrus really means. I went to the farmer and asked, "What's in your maple syrup? The farmer answered that the only thing in there was maple syrup, as the sign explicitly said. "So it is kosher?" I asked? He answered that it certainly was. I said, "No it's not." He wanted to know why. After all, what else was in there but pure maple syrup? I asked him, "What's your anti-foaming agent?" He said, "Oh, I use my own home-made butter." I said, "You see? It's not kosher." And you know what? This isn't even illegal! According to the law, you don't have to report anti-foaming agents. The truth is, it would probably be bittul, but you're not allowed to teach a goy the laws of bittul, because then he'll start being his own rav and be mevatel things lechatchila, which is of course not allowed.
----
I was once quoted in El-Al's magazine, and soon after took a flight to Israel. I noticed a bunch of frum people going to the back of the airplane after they had eaten a fleishik dinner to look for non-dairy creamer for their coffee. I asked on one of them, "Why are you going to the back of the plane to get non-dairy creamer? What's wrong with the regular creamer?" He looked at me funny and said, "The dinner they served was fleishik, so I need non-dairy creamer." I said, "What's wrong with having milk and meat together?"

Suddenly there was a big tumult, everyone was looking at me like I was crazy, a Jew in a black hat and coat with a beard saying that you could eat milchigs and fleishigs together! One of the stewardess's came over to me, and asked me what my problem was. I said, "It's not fair to to you, having to be bothered by all these people for non-dairy creamer, when they could just as well use the provided dairy creamer!" The stewardess looked at me like I was crazy, and wondered how I could say such a thing? I showed her my picture in the in-flight magazine, and she realized that a Rabbi working for the OK probably knows his stuff, so she listened to what I had to say. I said, "Look at the ingredients of the non-dairy creamer you're going to serve these frum Jews here and tell me what you see." She got a container, read the ingredients, and said, "What's the problem? I don't see any milk here." I said, "Look closely at the ingredients." She started to read them out loud, and when she reached "WPC" I asked her, "What is that?" She had no clue, and I explained that it's whey protein concentrate, i.e. a dairy product. She asked me how it was legal to call it "non-dairy" creamer, and I answered her that in Torah, anything which has milk or any milk product in it is milchig, but in American law, only milk is dairy. It's possible that cottage cheese can be non-dairy too!
------
It's not possible, naturally, that apple juice, orange juice, whatever, should taste the same year after year, due to changes in climate, growing patterns, etc. And yet somehow it does taste the same. How? Through the addition of sugar or water to adjust the taste so that it should be uniform. Did you know that according to the law a company can write on their product "100% Juice" and add up to seventeen (17!) percent sugar or water?
------
There's a heter to eat butter made by a non-Jew, because it's impossible to make butter from a non-Kosher animal. Nowadays though, this heter doesn't work, even for people who eat chalav akum. Why? Because it's possible to have treif butter.

Milk is put through a separator, which separates the hard milk from the water. It used to be that this water was just thrown out, but nowadays it's used to make sugar, whey, etc.

In order to make hard cheese you need rennet to put in milk. For this cheese a Jew has to put in the rennet, or according to some opinions merely own it (Shach). If this isn't done, then the cheese is gevinas akum, which is forbidden by all. While this cheese is being made it makes whey, which is then used to make butter. So if this whey comes from gevinas akum then the butter is not kosher, even if it has all kosher ingredients.
-----
There was a company which produced hand-made chocolate balls. They wanted to become kosher, so we told them to send us a list of their ingredients. After we received the list we went to the plant to take a look at their operation. One of the mashgichim noticed that the workers would dip their hands in vinegar before making each ball in order that the hot chocolate shouldn't stick to their hands. This vinegar was not on the ingredient list, because it didn't go into the food (it evaporated once the balls dried).

We told the owner of the plant that he had to write everything that the company used, not only what he thought we'd care about. When we got the next ingredient list, it had toilet paper, mops, everything! The guy had no clue what needed to be kosher!
----
There are different types of ingredients which can go into a product, and the list of what is what is kept secret. Why? Because the list is constantly changing, and it wouldn't do for people to be relying on an old list.
1. Items that need no hechsher, regardless of where they're made in the world or by whom. This list does not include fruits and vegetables.
2. Item is Kosher, even without symbol, whether it's from a from certain supplier, with a specific lot number, etc.
3. Needs a hechsher, i.e. a symbol, stamp, or letter.
4. Tanker-this fleet is always kosher, for example, Domino Sugar's tankers are all kosher.
5. Tanker that needs instructions along with it.
6. Ingredients that are not kosher but are allowed in a kosher factory, for example gelatin in a candy factory. Since gelatin can only be used in soft candy (the equipment used to make hard candy would be destroyed by gelatin) it's allowed in certain instances.

A factory is not allowed to have compatible Kosher and not-kosher products, i.e. it's not allowed to have both kosher and not-kosher canola oil.
----
To kasher a home is relatively simple. A factory is very difficult. For example, nowadays many factories use a closed loop steam system, which means that you can kasher everything involved in making a product, and yet if the steam system is connected to something which is used to make non-kosher food then the whole thing is treif.

Or, for example, there's a major problem with spray dryers, massive three-story funnel-shaped machines, which turn liquids into powders. How do you kasher them? After all, everything in them turns immediately to a solid! Once someone tried kashering one with a blowtorch, but I don't think they ever allowed him to try that again.
-----
Zev Katz tells a story of a big rav who always cursed out Lubavitch who suddenly stopped. He was asked why, and he explained by telling a story.

He had once gone on a trip to some small city in Canada, and he went to eat breakfast by a non-Lubavitcher Rabbi in the city. He was offered coffee, and the Rabbi mentioned that since he was so far from "civilization" he had no access to chalav yisrael milk, for which he apologized. The Yerushalmi Rav said it was ok, but he didn't have any milk. Later that day he was invited to the local shliach's for supper, which was pareve, and he was offered coffee and milk afterwords. He declined, explaining that he only drinks chalav yisrael milk. The shliach said, "What do you think I drink?" The Rav said, "But the other Rabbi in the city told me that there's no chalav yisrael available in the city?" The shliach replied that he would go to a farm every week and ensure a supply of chalav yisrael.

The Rav said, "Since then, when I saw the mesiras nefesh a Chabad shliach has, I only have good things to say about Lubavitch."
-----
So we once had a mashgiach working in a big hotel in Manhattan making a dinner for a big Jewish organization that included 800 Cornish hens. The mashgiach was walking around the kitchen, and he spotted a bunch of chicken entrails in a garbage can which obviously should not have been there. He asked the chef in charge, and the guy said, "Don't you see there's 800 chickens here? How the heck should I know?"

The mashgiach immediately called up Rabbi Heller and asked what to do. After all, this was a Chaticha Haruya Lehiskaved, did they have to throw them all out?

You want the answer? Go learn!
-----

Caveat enterers!

This past Yud Shvat I made a hachlata (as prompted by my mashpia) to refrain from any sort of untznius posting. Thus far I have stayed on the straight and narrow, but tonight that all comes to an end, because tonight it's time for Klalei Sfeik Sfeikah 2-9! I can tell you're all wildly excited. That's right folks. We're in for a fabulous evening's apocalypse, complete with omelets for everybody!

A warning for those readers of ours who are in possession of a youthful persuasion: the Sifsei Kohen does get a little, shall we say, "explicit", so if you're reading this (aren't you up past your bedtime anyway?) and not of the age of majority then you might wish to reconsider.

All right, on with the show!

A sfek sfekah is when there are two sfekos, two doubts regarding something. One of the classic cases regards a man who comes to his local orthodox beis din and declares, "My wife has had relations with a man other than me!" Upon finding this to be true, does the beis din immediately take her out to killing fields? Of course not.

Who said she had these relations when she was married? And even if she did have them while in a state of marriage, maybe she was raped? This is a case of sfek sfekah, because neither condition is dependent on the other. Even if she wasn't raped (i.e. it was consensual), who says it happened after she was married?

Another classic case of sfek sfekah is when there is a kosher hen and a possibly-kosher hen with one egg among them. (A possibly-kosher hen is one that might be a treifah). The question is, of course, is the egg kosher?

The first safek is that the egg might have come from the kosher hen; even if it didn't, who says that the other chicken isn't in fact kosher?

The question is, since one of the sfekos is on a d'oraisa, why don't we say sfeka d'oraisa l'chumrah? In English, since there's a possible Torah prohibition (if the bird is in fact not kosher), why don't we follow the dictum that whenever there's a possible Torah prohibition we rule stringently?

We answer that in this case, when we look at the egg (whose status we're examining), we find that after the first safek we can assume that the egg is from the kosher chicken. And even if it's not, maybe the other chicken is really kosher anyway?

The same principle can be found in a case where some blood is found on a sheet following marital cord (the opposite of discord, right?). Actually, if I recall correctly, the loshon in the Shach is that a husband and wife were doing there thing.

Once again, there are two sfekos here. Who says the blood is from the woman? Maybe the guy was scratched?And even if the blood is of female origin, who says it's prohibited niddah blood (from the womb)? Perhaps it's from one of the corridors?

By the way, why is a woman every a niddah? After all, it's a always a safek! Well yes, that's true, but it's safek d'oraisa l'chumra. Regardless, in the above case, we can say the same thing as the chickens. We start with the the assumption that there's no problem, that the blood came from the hubbie. And even if it didn't, maybe it was non-niddah blood.

So how about if a possibly-treif chicken gets mixed up with a bunch of kosher chickens? Is there a sfek sfekah, because who says you've got that chicken, and even if this is it, who says it's treif anyway?

Actually, we rule that there is no sfek sfekah here. The reason is that we there are two different sfekos here, one in the body of the chicken itself (whether it itself is treif or not) and one in the mixture (whether you've got the possibly-treif one or not). This is called safek echad b'guf v'safek echad b'taaruvos, and it's not a sfek sfekah. A true sfek sfekah always is on one body, for example one egg, or one woman.

The mateh binyamin does permit this chicken, in fact, in a case where the safek was only recognized later, for example where the chicken's being a safek treifah was only revealed after it had been mixed up. The Shach rules that we can rely on this heter in a case of hefsed merubah (large financial loss) or else when the food is needed for a seudas mitzvah.

How about one last bonus case? It's called "tolin" and it only applies in a public domain.

What if there's two paths and one of those paths has a dead body buried underneath it. Problem is, we don't know which path it is. If someone walks on either of those paths he doesn't become tameh because he can always say that the other path is the impure one.

And what if two people walk on those paths? If they come before a rabbi separately, then they are both pure, because both can say that the other guy is the impure one. However, if they come together, then they're both impure, because one of them is certainly impure, and the safek is only which one it is. Since we say safek d'oraisa l'chumra, they're both impure.

Well, that was fun, I sure hope you all enjoyed it.

Kol haposel

You all ready for some shulchan oruch I learned today? Excellent. This is in no way intended to replace a thoroughly competent orthodox rabbinical figure, and anyone who paskens from here deserved whatever happens to them.

The mechaber writes, in siman 110 Halacha 7, concerning any mixture of kosher food and food that is not able to be nullified, for example a live animal, an insect, a piece of meat worthy of being served for a guest, or a forbidden item that will in the future be permitted. If one of these non-Kosher foods is mixed up (not cooked) with a similar kosher food then the entire mixture is forbidden because it's impossible to know what is kosher and what is not kosher. If, however, one of the pieces of the mixture is lost forever, for example it's eaten by someone accidentally, then the remainder may be eaten, provided that double the amount of original forbidden food is consumed each time consumption occurs.

For example, if someone has ten kosher steaks and a tenth non-kosher steak gets mixed up among them, and then one of the steaks is accidentally eaten, then a person could eat two steaks at a time, no problem. Why two? Because then there's always at least biblical permission to eat the one (potential) non-Kosher steak. If there's only one then at some point you'll definitely be eating treif, and of course it's forbidden to eat treif. The same reasoning would apply if three treif pieces originally fell into the pot; you'd have to eat six pieces every time, in order to make certain of the biblically-mandated majority kosher meat.

The Taz (ches) asks why the Mechaber allows the remainder of the previously-forbidden mixture to be eaten. It's because we consider the missing piece to have been the forbidden piece. The question then arises, why didn't the rabbis forbid this mixture, because we should be scared that someone will then intentionally eat one piece in order to permit the remaining pieces.

The reason the rabbis didn't forbid this is because what this person would in effect be doing is eating a piece of treif meat (remember, that's what we consider the missing piece to be) in order to make the rest of the meat kosher. But if he cares about the rest of the meat being kosher, then he's not going to eat the treif! And if he doesn't care, then he's going to eat it anyway! So either way, you're fine.

The Taz says, this can't be right. Of course no Torah-observing Jew is going to eat treif, but who's to say he won't get rid of it somehow else, like by giving it to a non-Jew or dog, or by throwing it into the sea? Therefore the Taz says that we do in fact prohibit the entire mixture, even if a piece is accidentally lost.

It's been a long time

My faithful readers, have, I'm sure, missed me and my commas tremendously. Someone suggested that I show off my new-found religiosity by writing a bit about Sotah. You see, there's a minhag among us super-religious types to learn Sotah between Pesach and Shavuos, and I came across some interesting things while shteiging (excuse me while I brech).

Did you know that the whole thing of a shidduch being more difficult to arrange than the splitting of the see of reeds only applies to a second marriage? And that if you're not deserving than someone else marries your bashert and you have to settle for second best? Of course, you'd never know it, because no one in heaven's telling you what's going on anyway, but still, it's interesting.

Is this an obvious opening for serious discussion on G-d's omniscience and foreknowing and man's free choice? Absolutely not. Firstly, it's way too late for such talk, and second of all, even if it was 9:30 PM and a riotous night of blogging stretched before me I wouldn't give it a moment's thought (besides for my probable listening to a Twins game at that point). No one comes here to read deep philosophical mumbo jumbo, and I certainly don't intend to write it. No, I'd much rather write about the approaching doom and impending horror that is Sefirah.

It's not so much the lack of Lipa Schmeltzer (besides for 51 precious seconds of Men Darf Behalten) but rather the hour of horrid Lev Tahor (in the interests of full disclosure, I loved Lev Tahor 2) and a similar amount of the Chevra (Lecha my guilty pleasure). I never heard the Miami Boys Choir music-less album, but I can't imagine it's much better. Who else? 613? No thanks. Kol Zimra is too modern-orthodoxy, and all the rest who I can't think of at the moment are I'm sure equally lacking in merit. No, for me it's Yosef Karduner and the Avraham-lead Frieds. (What's with all the hyphens and parentheses? You'll have to excuse me-must be the late hour).

Still, there are yet a few days of normal music, and I currently rejoice in the symphonic majesty of Truah L'Yisroel on Avraham Fried's Im Eshkocheich Yisroel. And did you know that MBD's Ich Hob Gevart was majesty itself? Yup, I've waited for too long...next year in Monsey!

BREAKING NEWS! IMPORTANT!

From Yossi, a bochur in Lubavitch:

Correction

I was at fault for helping to spread a false rumor that this year's Birkas HaChama is only the third time in Jewish history that it occurs on Erev Pesach, and the first two were Yetzias Metzrayim and Purim.
That is incorrect.
Yetzias Metzrayim and Purim weren't even years of Birkas HaChama, and in the past 1500 or so years, this will actually be the 5th time it occurs on Erev Pesach.
What is interesting is that this is the last time ever, until Moshiach comes, that it will be Erev Pesach (this is true even if chas v'shalom moshiach doesn't come until the year 6000)

Save the best for last

This morning I flew back to good 'ol Minnesota, and had a terrible flight. No, it wasn't the turbulence, nor the pathetic amount of ginger ale (one cup!) or even waiting forever (and half an hour after that) to deplane. No, what was terrible about the flight was that it was scheduled to leave the gates at 10:50, and like the tattelehs we are we were all sitting nicely in our seats, waiting to leave. The stewardess came on the public address thingie and said that there were just a couple passengers who hadn't yet gotten on the plane, and we'd be waiting for them. At 11:15 the last of those couple (it was more like 12) passengers got on the plane. And guess who the vast majority of those passengers were? That's right folks, frum Jews!

Now, I don't mind being a little late, but I do mind A. the chilul Hashem, and B. the connections my fellow passengers made between me and those late in boarding. For the sake of truth I must point out that the five Lubavitchers on the plane were all on time, while of the 12 or so non-Lubavitchers, about ten.... But my point here is not to bash our Lakewood brethren. It's to plead for a little courtesy and respect for one's G-d. If you don't believe in that, at least have some mercy on your fellow passengers!

This point was brought closer to home tonight at Shul where we had two of our SLP brethren join the minyan. It was embarrassing for me as a Lubavitcher to see everyone talking during Davening and generally showing that we don't particularly care about prayers or halacha.

The bright spot of prayers was Rabbi Nachman Wilhelm coming over to me and saying, "You're causing trouble." I asked him why, and he told me that someone came over to him and asked, "Is it Lubavitch minhag not to do Birkas Hachamah?" Rabbi Wilhelm asked him where he could get such a crazy idea from. He answered, "From The Real Shliach!" I was as shocked as Rabbi Wilhelm at this, and as soon as I could I went online and looked at the post he was referencing. I assume that it's this post, because no other post talks about our once-in-28-year blessing of the sun/early wake up. As you can see for yourself, I said no such thing.

Another bright spot of prayers was Rabbi Wilhelm's halftime speech. He asked, why is it that the afikomen is hidden? Even in Lubavitch, where we don't steal it, we still hide it. What's up with this?

The gematriah of Afikomen is the same as "B'mirmah", which means trickery. We find this word used in the Torah to describe the way Yaakov got the birthright from Esau. Why specifically this word? It's explained in the holy books that when Yaakov brought his father two sheep he was actually bringing his father a korban pesach and a korban chagigah, for it was in fact the holiday of Passover. Once Yitzchak had eaten of these he could bless his son with all the goodness of the world.

There was one remaining problem. How did Yaakov know that his brother Esau wouldn't come, feed his father as well, and get a share of the blessings? The halacha says that one may not eat after the Afikomen, so Yaakov fed his father this-the afikomen, b'mirmah. When his brother later came with his meal Yitzchak could no longer eat, and the blessings were given exclusively to Jacob.

The Vilna Gaon asks a question on this. He says that the Seder must be at night, and the blessings were given in the day. So how can you say that this story happened on Pesach? Rabbi Gershon Grossbaum said that we find the same thing by Avraham Avinu. When the angels came he gave them matzos and meat for it was Pesach, even though it was in the middle of the day. Obviously, you must say that when it comes to the simanim of the Seder, even the day is okay. Or something like that.

Rabbi Wilhelm then proceeded to ask another question. What's with the four cups of wine? Why do we drink them? To show we're free. But for many people, four cups of wine is a burden. Even for those who imbibe with ease, we it still seems like an odd choice. After all, most people becoming at least a little affected after four cups of wine-is this the freedom the Torah recommends?

When the Jews left Egypt they had no clue what was going on. It's not like nowadays, where no one goes to the airport and catches the next flight out. We first want to know where it's headed! When the Jews left Egypt, however, they just got it, having no clue where they were going, or what they would do for food, drink, and the other essentials of life (wifi?). They simply put their faith in the word of G-d as transmitted by Moses and journeyed onward and upward. This is true freedom, to not be encumbered by physicality, by obstacles, but rather to make like Lipa Schmeltzer and hut bitachon.

Today, when we drink the four cups, we look for the very same feeling. We are trying to leave our limitations, our personal Egypt, and have faith in our Father in heaven.

There's an interesting story of the Kotzker, who when he heard this vort immediately thought of his Rebbe, R' Simcha Bunim of Peshischa. He reasoned that his Rebbe was not one to get affected by mere piddling amounts of alcohol, but he also knew that the Rebbe would surely want to fulfill this mitzvah. (You know, maybe I'm getting the story mixed up a little. Maybe R' Simcha wanted to make sure his talmid fulfilled the mitzva correctly?) When it came time to select cups for the seder the largest cup possible was selected by (one or another) for (the other one) in order that he should be able to fulfill the mitzva properly.

Man, it seems so wrong to print such a bad retelling (my fault of course) of a story. Oh well.

Alter Rebbe’s Shluchan Aruch Siman 334

The following is not intended as an actual halachic guide:

1. If a flame falls on Shabbos the Rabbis decreed that one may not save anything from inside, even to bring permitted things in a permitted manner to a permitted place. Even food and drink may not be saved except for what is needed for that Shabbos itself. For example, if the flame fell on Friday night before the meal then provisions for three meals may be saved, what is fit for a person for a person and what is fit for an animal for an animal. If in the morning then provisions may be saved for two meals, and if in the afternoon then provisions for one meal may be saved. The reason is that if a person was allowed to save all his possessions then we are scared that due to his exertions over the saving of his possessions he will forget that the day is Shabbos and come to put out the flame.

2. When do we say this? When we are discussing the house that the the flame fell in. However, houses which are close and are in danger of being engulfed in the flames may save everything that they want, since they aren’t so worried, they won’t forget that it’s Shabbos due to their exertions.

Even money or any other important muktzeh items may be saved and this is the law, that one is permitted to deal with them in order to save them from thieves, or from the municipal workers who come to house. This is because the Rabbis did not legislate at all on the moving of muktzeh objects if a great loss will be incurred due to their loss. This is only if there is no other way to save them. For example, it is forbidden to bring a large case indoors even if the city is surrounded by an eruv since it is possible to place a guard or to watch it yourself. However there are those who forbid the saving of any objects, even if a great loss will be incurred, and this opinion is the main one.

Nevertheless there are those who say that it is permitted to save money or other expensive items from a fire or thieves because a person is careful on his money and he will certainly save them from loss. If the Rabbis had not permitted this than a person would transgress a greater prohibition and put out the fire. Since the Rabbis allowed a person to save them by moving he won’t transgress.

For this reason there are those who permit one to save his possessions through a karmelis, but since many argue with this leniency a person should not be lenient unless he is merely moving things.

Halacha 28: Nowadays, when we live among the nations, and there is the possibility that a fire will spread… it is permitted to put out a fire, even if it’s in a non-Jew’s house, as we are afraid that it will strengthen and endanger lives, and whoever hurries to put out such a fire is praise-worthy. When they are certain that there is no danger to human life then the fire may not be put out, but if there’s the slightest danger then it is permitted to put it out, and this is what we do.

The soaked woman

Tonight I was testing Dovid Greenberg (whose sister just got engaged to Dovid Russ) on a blatt of kesubos when rejoicing struck. Or something like that. The page he was saying by heart contained the gemarah's view on women and alcohol. Is there a better topic for the twenty second day of shevat? Here we combine those two loves of every detroiter-the mama and alcohol, in one easy package. Which brings up something Rabbi Schapiro, our noble leader and babysitter to the masses, said today. Seems like Meir Harlig once called up Bentzi Shemtov and proposed the perfect bochur for his daughter-chassidish, disheveled, a regular alcoholic! Could there be a better addition to the Shemtov clan? Once Rabbi Chaim had finished describing how Bentzi told Meir him in no uncertain terms that nothing was happening our Rabbi said, "The Shemtovs may encourage bochurim to be 'detroiters', but they know that they're nuts; for them it's all a show, and when it comes real life they know what's going on."

Anyway, the Mishnah on 63A in Kesubos conspicuously does not state that a wife is to be given a stipend of wine. This supports the assertion of R' Elazar. Go look up the gemarah for full details. This seems to contradict a baraisa which states that if a woman is accustomed to wine then we give her a stipend of it. The gemarah answers that a woman who is accustomed to wine is different; she receives one cup, while one who is unaccustomed receives two cups.
The gemarah immediately states that this makes no sense, and says, in the name of Abaye, that a woman who is accustomed to drink two cups in front of her husband gets one when not in his presence, while one who only normally drinks one when in his presence gets none when she's nowhere near him.
The gemarah cites a related baraisa which says "One cup of wine is good for a woman. Two will result in her being disgraced, three will cause her to verbally solicit her husband for marital relations (which is uncharacteristic for a woman to do, and which will result in negative effects on the kiddies produced), and after four cups she'll solicit even a donkey in the marketplace and she is not particular."
Rava said that they taught this baraisa only where the husband is not with her, but when he is, we are not concerned.

Good shtuff, eh? Yup folks, this is your religion!

A renaissance man in our very own MoTown

This morning it was suggested to our lord and sovereign Rabbi, the real Chaim Schapiro, that he farbreng tomorrow night in honor of the upcoming holy day Yud Shevat. He pointed at yours truly and said to the the bochur making the suggestion, "As long as you are willing to take responsibility for everything he records." I was shocked and awed by this statement, and asked the leader of our humble smicha pogrom here in Morristown if he was really scared of me, an idea to which he vigorously assented. "Its not only what you write that I'm scared of," he said, "but also what you don't write."
Funnily enough, I think today will go down in the book of chronicles of the kings of TRS as the day which featured the apex of Schapiro inspired genius. I hope I'm wrong, and today is merely the beginning of a beautiful friendship, as Rick would have said to Louis, but if the fates have it otherwise, we'll always have Paris. I mean, I'll always have this 2 Shevat to look on with joy. Not only did it feature an abundance of Schapiro inspired goodness, but I got most of what I was learning. Turns out we don't have as many problems trusting Jews as you might have thought. But more on that later.

Anyway. A bochur approached the Rabbi and asked him a question regarding the biblical prohibition of Baal yiraeh and baal yimatze. I feel a great longing for those glorious days of long-gone bochurhood when I too could decide in the beginning of Shevat to go through all of hilchos Pesach, the scheduled Gemara be damned. I used to do it too. But now I'm stuck learning all about pieces of meat and drops of milk. Oh well. I suppose I wouldn't have it any other way.
I didn't catch the whole conversation, but I did hear the Rabbi compare chametz to cocaine. If you find it in your house, what is the law? How about if you inherited it? You think the Torah is strict when it comes to chametz? Try out the US government when it comes to drugs.

Next on the agenda was a discussion about toothpaste. I mentioned that I used Tom's of Maine, and the Rabbi said that he thought it was disgusting, tasted like pure fluoride. I said that I liked it, but we were already discussing the efficacy of that important mineral. The rabbi confided that when he was a mere child he got fluoride treatments when he went to the dentist, and was shocked when I too told the assembled multitudes that I too underwent the same procedure as a young pup. The question then arose as to the kashrus of commercial fluoride treatments and that of floss. The Rabbi said that if you're careful to only use kosher toothpaste then you should only use kosher floss as well.

In the Pri Megadim it mentions an edition of the Rashba that was publishes in "Crimnean", or something like that, and the Rabbi speculated that this was our modern day Crimea. We then had an hour long discussion regarding; the Yalta conference of Uncle Joe, the great Winston, and FDR that mamzer, the Russo-Japanese war of 1902 and the Rebbe Rashab's efforts therein to provide matza for the Jewish soldiers, the annihilation (did I just murder that spelling?) of the Russian navy in 1904, the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade and their annihilation at the hands of the Russians (was that better?), his great uncle's fighting in the bloodbath that was Stalingrad, the Berlin Wall, the Berlin Airlift, and several other topics that I don't remember offhand. A lot of fun.

To cap off this great day I asked him to explain the Taz's comparison of food to a woman who intentionally adulters but thinks it's all right. He explained that it's talking about a woman who's a "swinger" (I am not making this up) who thinks that there's no problem with going to parties and going home with men other than her husband. So what's the problem here? Since she didn't know she's not allowed to do this she should be permitted to her husband, just like if you think you can intentionally be mevatel an issue in a heter someone else is allowed to benefit from it. Ahh, the Taz explains, there's a special passuk here, teaching that although she may be okay with G-d she's not all square with her not so dear hubbie. So she must leave him. But in our case of the food, where no one gets hurt, there wouldn't be a problem.

As you can see, today's time in zal rocked. And tomorrow's farbie promises to be even better. All right, so the bochur who's arranging it threatened to get me drunk beforehand so that I wouldn't be able to record the contents, but don't worry. If I have to I'll manage both with the aplomb for which TRS is justly infamous.

Tov tov lehodos!

Due to a combination of stupidity and slow trains I missed my smicha test today. The stupidity was all mine; for some reason I believed the Rabbi when he said my group had a possibility of getting tested tonight or on Monday, so I only planned on getting back to Motown at 7:30 or so. As it happened the testing went much faster than expected, and I was still on the train when my group went in. Is there any specific reason why every single station had to be stopped at? So you may ask, "Where does the stupidity come in?" The answer is that it's just stupid to think you can waltz into yeshiva half an hour before a test and ace it, so even if my plan had worked out I would have looked like a fool. Fortunately someone arranged to switch with me, and there I was, ready to take the test at 6:00. Except that we were told that the test would commence at 7:15. After not having an appetite for supper caused me to shun the supper spread, I meandered up to the testing room and proceeded to do some quick cramming. As the appointed time passed the room filled with its complement of six sacrificial students, and once the Rabbis came in we were ready to get tested. Rabbi Yeruslavsky's first question, which we had been warned he asked at every test, was, "By saying what do you violate the prohibition of baal tosif?" By the time I got my first question, four down the line, they had become significantly harder. I answered the first in relatively good time; fortunately I had written down the opinions of the Shach and Taz in my shulchan oruch, but I didn't want it to look like I was just reading my notes, so I looked in the Shach for ten seconds, read half a note, did the same for the Taz, and so on down the line. Worked like a charm.
They always say that in a group oral test you always know everyone else's answers perfectly, and this was really brought out the next time the guy sitting next to me was asked a question. He totally blanked, and began to frantically flip his shulchan oruch in a desperate attempt to find the answer. I calmly hit my pencil repeatedly on the correct Ramah until he noticed what I was doing and read it off. My next question dealt with cucumbers, and once I had dealt with that I thought of appropriate to begin writing down the questions so that I would remember them for y'all, my faithful readers. I then realized that it looked like I was writing the answers for the guy sitting on the other side of me, so I ceased and desisted, which means I can't provide you with the full report you deserve.
At about this time Rabbi Chaim Schapiro took a bunch of smicha certificates out of a UPS envelope and Rabbi Yeruslavsky began to sign the documents we'll be getting in a year from now. Once that was done, and we were just finishing up the fourth round of questioning, Rabbi Schapiro decided to show us off a little and subjected us to a fifth round, which is more than anyone else. In this one I totally blanked when asked a pretty simple query, "What is the machlokes mechaber and ramah regarding N'at bar N'at. Fortunately the rabbi managed to drag the correct answer out of me, and I escaped the test, and the cigarettes (for by this time Rabbi Y had lit up) with a kimat tov, which is very nearly good but not quite there. But the main thing is I survived it.
You know it's funny, because everyone said their own thing on what he would ask, and how he'd ask it, but in the end he didn't really follow anyone's assertion. After an hour we were up, and that was that. And I'm so tired that I'll say the same.