MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: I used 2 kilo of flour to bake several challot. I remembered about hafrashat challah (=HC) only after baking most of the challot and freezing the remaining dough (which I didn’t need for that Shabbat). How do I do HC now? A: One who did not do HC on dough may do so even on the resulting bread (we will reserve the term challah for that which is taken off during HC) with a b'racha (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 327:5). However, should the challah be taken from the dough, the bread, both, or either? One may not do HC from one MIN (type) onto another,e.g., if they are made from different grains (ibid. 324:2). Are dough and bread from the same grain considered one MIN in this regard? The Tur (YD 324) discusses one who mixed up loaves of bread, where only one had HC done on it. One solution to the problem is to make enough new dough for a new obligation of HC and take from it onto whichever loaf requires it. The Derisha (ad loc. :4) wonders why one could not make a little dough and connect it to the existing loaves to create a combination. He answers that bread and dough are like two MINIM which do not combine to create an obligation of HC, and one cannot take challah from some- thing that is not obligated to exempt something that is (one of the loaves). However, if the dough is independently obligated, the challah taken to exempt it can also exempt the bread. In your case, the original dough was ostensibly obligated in HC and, therefore, challah can be taken from either the bread or the dough. However, we must examine a few assumptions. First, it is not clear that all agree with the Derisha. The Hag'hot Maimoniot (Teshuvot after Zera’im, 22) says that one cannot do HC from bread on dough or vice versa. Admittedly, that is a minority opinion and the Challat Lechem (2:(23)) even limits it to an exceptional situation. Few seem to be aware of the more serious issue. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 326:2) (based on a mishna (Challah 1:7)) says that if one makes enough dough for HC with the intention to break it up before baking into pieces that are too small for HC, it is exempt from HC. (Although the obligation begins at the time it is dough, this is based on assumptions regarding the future baking. That which happens after baking does not affect the obligation of HC.) If so, how do we ever do HC, since our individual loaves are small? The most common answer is that the aforementioned ruling refers to cases where the dough is given to different people. However, if one keeps and bakes smaller loaves, so that they may be “reunited” later, it is considered one batch, which is obligated. However, several poskim make distinctions regarding the level of future connection between the loaves even when they are kept by one person (see Pitchei Teshuva, YD 326:2). This is not the forum for in-depth analysis. However, the bottom line is that it is unclear if there is an obligation of HC when that which is baked immediately and that which is baked much later (in this case, after the first batch is finished) are individually “undersized.” If you may have already baked enough for HC and the leftover dough is smaller, you may not be able to take challah from the possibly exempt dough on the obligated bread. However, it is possible that a minhag has developed to view the dough to be baked and that to be frozen as dough as one batch, for many women make a b'racha even in this case (see Shevet Halevi IV, 145). (One can question the wisdom of kneading and freezing more dough than needed just to enable making a b'racha.) In your case, the safest idea is to bake the remaining dough (and freeze later) and put the batches together (i.e. by covering them together - Shulchan Aruch ibid. 325:1) for HC. Another safe system is to take challah from the bread on the bread and the dough on the dough without a b'racha (assuming each is too small for a b'racha). It is legitimate to accept the opinions that you can do HC as you like with a b'racha as long as they are all before you (see ibid.:2) Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel [2] Candle by Day [3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively) As the people of Israel neared the Promised Land, after 40 years of delay, there arose new yet familiar problems. First, they became impatient and surly. The closer one gets to one's destination, the stronger the desire to get there already. Being so close makes what remains to be covered intolerably far (see Netziv). That is the meaning of the text: "the people became impatient because of the way" - it was so near, yet looked so distant. In such a situation one is in danger of saying and doing foolish things. Then they announced that they "loathed" the wondrous manna that had nourished them now for 40 years. But this too was connected with the fact that they were fast approaching the Promised Land. They said: This light bread was adequate during our long "abnormal" existence in the wilderness, where we enjoyed divine protection. Now, however, as we are about to enter the real world and became responsible for our security and economic well- being, perhaps this "light bread" is too "spiritual" to provide the extra energy (just as the developing infant begins to find his mother's milk inadequate; Netziv). So too, our own generation. After 58 years of kibbutz galuyot and Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel, we are drawing closer to the Promised Redemption. And once again, we have become impatient. In our desire to "get there already' some have resorted to violence and turned against the State. This is foolish and dangerous. Others who are still in Galut should perhaps begin to question the attitudes they have been "fed" for so long. Perhaps these were adequate for the "abnormal" existence during the long Exile but they have failed to provide the spiritual fibre and balanced outlook needed to respond properly to the new reality which is Atchalta d'Geula - "the beginning of the sprouting of our Redemption." Rabbi Shubert Spero, Jerusalem TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat HaShavu’a [4] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit [5] Parsha Points to Ponder - CHUKAT THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 2) The Meshech Chochma answers that the manna had the taste of honey and oil and, therefore, they were not really lacking those items. Thus, they were precise in choosing the fruits of Israel from which they derived no benefit at that time. 3) Rav Moshe Feinstein teaches that G-D wanted their to be an everlasting message that there is importance to speaking to people even when they appear to be as unreceptive as an inanimate rock. Whether it be our children, students, or good friends, there is benefit in instructing and trying to guide them even when it seems to make no impression. Something good often comes out of such discussions and situations. [6] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum - FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il Yet the commentators don't agree on what the sin was. The answers to the question 'What exactly was Moshe's sin?" abound. Luzzatto even says "Moshe, our teacher committed one sin, but our commentators have heaped on him 13 and more, each one having invented a fresh one... I have therefore refrained from going into this problem for fear I might attribute a new sin to Moshe!" We will concentrate on one suggestion for where the sin entered. Rambam (in Shmoneh Perakim) says the whole sin lay in "erring on the side of anger and deviating from the mean of patience". Rav Yisrael from Rozin says it is legitimate to get angry every now and then. Even Hashem gets angry. The Rabbis even say that Hashem gets angry every day (Brachot 7). But His anger lasts only for a minute as it says in the verse in Tehilim (30:6), "For His anger endures but a moment". A person can get angry sometimes -but if he remains angry for a long time that is a sign that the trait of anger is taking him over. The verse says that Moshe hit the rock twice (20:11). Being angry and hitting the rock once would have been okay, but hitting it a second time was excessive. It showed that Moshe was not in full control of his anger, and for someone on his level that was a sin. BAKED SESAME CARAWAY POTATO STICKS [7] MicroUlpan [8] Torah from Nature - Fiddler Crab [9] Divrei Menachem Paradoxically, those who sprinkle the purifying ashes of this heifer on an individual contaminated by a dead body themselves become ritually defiled. We can suggest that the use of a red animal symbolizes sin and that the lack of a yoke invokes the sinner who cast off his religious responsibilities. The lowly hyssop might then signify the need for the sinner to humble himself. But how do we explain the paradox? In essence we cannot. This unusual law is the quintessential Chok, a command for which we cannot grasp its reason. Of this Chok, even King Solomon exclaimed, "I said I would be wise, but it is far from me" (Mishleh 7:23). We, in turn, would be wise to heed Ramban's counsel in this respect. For he reminds us that since the statute of the Red Heifer (and other seemingly illogical laws) are the product of G-d's intelligence, our inability to comprehend them is only a product of our own human deficiency. [The Parshat Chukat Homepage]
|
