MISC section - contents: Q: Does one make a b'racha on ice cream served as dessert at a meal with bread? A: The gemara (B'rachot 41b) presents the basic rules of b'rachot during a meal. Foods that “come due to the meal” do not require a b'racha (i.e. its own b'racha). Those not due to the meal require only a b'racha before them. The Rosh (ad loc.) describes foods that come due to the meal as those that connected to the main part of the meal and (/or?) are eaten with the bread. Fruit are prime examples of foods that are not due to the meal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 177:1). These are normally eaten to give a sweet taste rather than to fill one up. Although poskim assume that anything eaten before Birkat HaMazon is during the meal, foods that are eaten specifically for dessert are generally not due to the meal (see Mishna B'rura 177:4). The gemara (ibid.) asks: why, according to these rules, does one require a b'racha on wine drunk during the meal. It answers: “Wine is different, as it causes a b'racha for itself.” The most accepted explanation is that wine is unique in that we make a b'racha on it in various mitzva contexts (e.g. Kiddush and Sheva B'rachot) even when one is not interested in drinking it (Rashi, ad loc.). We see that, if not for this unique characteristic, wine would not have required a b'racha during a meal. Therefore, most Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 174:7) posit that drinks consumed during the meal, even toward its end, do not require a b'racha.Many explain that eating contributes to one’s thirst; thus quenching thirst is an integral part of the meal. Let us note that some Rishonim learn the gemara differently and say that one makes a b'racha on all drinks during the meal. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) even cites them as a minority opinion and suggests removing doubts by making a Shehakol before the meal to cover drinks. However, the practice is certainly not that way. One might wonder what ice cream, a classic dessert, meant to finish the meal with a sweet taste in one’s mouth, has to do with drinks. It is not part of the main meal and is not intended to quench one’s thirst. Yet, a few poskim make the following claim. Ice cream is a liquid that is served as a solid because people enjoy it at an artificially cold temperature. Since accepted practice is not to make a b'racha on liquids during a meal, including during dessert, one should not make a b'racha on ice cream. Yalkut Yosef (on OC167, 10) rules this way in the name of his father (Rav Ovadya). There are reports that Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled this way as well (see Vezot HaB'racha, pg. 74). One could say that it is logical to call ice cream a liquid only when it is based heavily on milk and/or water, not when it is a mixture of eggs, soy products, and sugar (i.e., pareve ice cream) (see opinions in Piskei Teshuvot 177:(24)). Perhaps Rav Moshe was speaking about classic ice cream; however, Rav Ovadya does not accept this distinction. It is difficult to accept the above ruling (despite the rule of safek b'rachot l’hakel) for fundamental reasons. The great majority of poskim understand that the matter does not depend on halachic definitions of liquid vs. solid but on the function of the food; is it a drink or a dessert? (The reason we do not make a b'rachaon most cakes for dessert is that they may be considered like bread (Bi'ur Halacha on 168:8.)) Even among drinks, the Mishna B'rura (177:39) brings machlokot about a b'racha for whiskey or coffee at the end of a meal, with the question being its function. Indeed, the gemara did not state a formal rule about liquids during a meal. So why should we lump all liquids together when their functions are so different? Most leading poskim rule to make a b'racha on ice cream, certainly the pareve type; some suggest dodging the issue by making a b'racha on a food it is agreed requires Shehakol (e.g., chocolate) (see opinions in Piskei Teshuvot and Vezot HaB'racha, ibid.). We recommend making a b'racha on ice cream served as dessert unless one always follows Rav Ovadya’s or possibly Rav Moshe’s rulings. 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 The key to life in the Land of Israel is following the directions that come with the package. Sh'mot 23:22 read: "But if you shall indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and an adversary to your adversaries." If we follow His commandments, the land will be ours and God will tend to all of our needs (food, water, protection from illness, secure borders, etc. - see the sub- sequent verses). A similar theme can be found in Sh'mot 34:24: "Neither shall any man desire your land, when you shall go up to appear before the Lord your God three times a year." It seems irresponsible to abandon one's home and belongings to perform the commandment of pilgrim- age to the Beit HaMikdash. God assures us that He will defend our property during our absence. In summary, nothing in Eretz Israel is as it
seems, at least not if we adhere to God's commandments. As it states in
D'varim 11:12: "A land which the Lord thy God cares for: the eyes of the
Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto
the end of the year." God's eyes are always upon the Land of Israel,
miraculously providing for those who seek Him. Once he saw another young man preparing to smoke his pipe. First he cleaned the pipe thoroughly, then he filled it with tobacco, and finally he managed to light it. During the time it took the young man to get his pipe ready, R' Shalom learned an entire page of gemara. Immediately R' Shalom put away his pipe, and never
smoked one again. "If this thing can cause a person to waste the time of an
entire page of Torah learning," he thought, "then I want to have nothing to
do with it." 2) The Torah teaches two laws regarding a pit. The first involves one who OPENS a pit and the second one who DIGS a pit and does not cover it (21:33). Why is the word BOR, meaning pit, written with a VAV regarding the first law and without a VAV regarding the second law? 3) Why are the verbs describing one who causes
pain and anguish to a widow and orphan described in double language - ANEH
TA'ANEH (you afflict pain), TZA'OK YITZHAK (he will cry), and SHAMO'A ESHMA
(I will hear)? (22:21-22) 2) The Vilna Gaon answers based on established halachot of pits. One who opens a pit is only liable for damages if the pit is ten t'fachim deep. This is hinted to by the word for pit being written in full with a VAV connoting that it must be a full/deep pit. If a person dug a pit of nine t'fachim and then a second person comes and digs the last tefach, the second person is liable for damages. Thus, one can be liable for digging less than ten t'fachim as hinted in the word BOR being written with fewer letters. 3) The Kotzker Rebbe teaches that when an orphan
and widow experience pain from others, the pain goes beyond dealing with
what was said or done to them. They often imagine that if the loved one who
passed away was still alive, they would somehow be spared from this current
experience. That brings back the feelings of pain and loss related to the
death. Thus, there is a double pain involved as captured by the Torah using
a double language to describe their pain, their crying and what G-D hears. Yes, there were people who practiced witchcraft - as we see from the story in the Gemara where Shimon ben Shetach trapped and hung 80 sorceresses who had been practicing witchcraft in a cave. We see from this story as well that witchcraft was primarily practiced by women. That's why the verse refers to the feminine sorceress (M'CHASHEIFA) and not the masculine form. The prohibition applies to both men and women; sorceresses are just more common. Witchcraft was one of the many things that the members of the Sanhedrin were supposed to know everything about. According to Rashi this was so that they would be able to fight against a witch if need be, or according to Maimonides so they would know who was practicing witchcraft so they would know who to punish. This follows Rambam's idea that there is no real power to witchcraft. He feels that the reason for the prohibition is because the idol worshipers believed that there was a power to it. According to Nachmanides (D'varim 18:9) the prohibition against witchcraft is because there is really something to it. Rabbeinu Bechaye says that sorcery is similar to the prohibition of kil'ayim. Witches try to control nature and put two things together that shouldn't be put together. They MACHISHIN PAMALYA SHEL MAALE. They don't believe that all the powers of the world are controlled by Hashem or they believe that they have the ability to overcome these powers. Sorcery is very much related to idol worship and trying to undermine the recognition of Hashem's power in the world. One thing is for sure, witchcraft is never used
for a good purpose. That is what the Rabbis teach (Shabbat 67a) that "any
practice that is related to healing is not from the practices of the Emori".
The Sefer Hachinuch explains that any practice that we might have thought is
forbidden because it seems to be related to witchcraft is not considered
witchcraft if it is meant to heal someone since witchcrafts goal is
destructive - not beneficial in any way. (See the Encyclopedia of Halacha
and Medicine edited by Prof. Abraham Steinberg for an article on magic and
medicine
www.medethics.org.il) amphibians... members of a large salamander
family... lizard like in shape, usually under 15cm long including the
slender tail. Some are brightly colored and secrete irritating substances...
aquatic, gilled larval stage... in some species the adults remain aquatic,
although they lose their gills and breathe air; in others the adults are
terrestrial... and some newts go through two adult phases: called efts on
land, then permanent aquatic life... Lately, we use a layout that is made for 11 sheets of paper, 44 pages. That is made up of 35 or 36 pages numbered from the front of the booklet and another H or I pages numbered - that is,lettered - from the back of the booklet. In addition, we anticipate at least one, and sometimes two (this week - three) sheets of unnumbered pages, which usually are the innermost pages. So why don't we number for 48 pages, if not 52? Because we have more flexibility with numbering for 44 pages. How so? Take our word for it. It usually works out, although we get into trouble sometimes. As pages are produced, we are better able to predict how many sheets we will need. The problem is when we are on the border. Do we squeeze, compress, edit out things, to fit the smaller number. Or do we go for the extra sheet. This week, for example, we could not hold things to 13 sheets (52 pages), so we decided on a 14th. We definitely could not have fit things into only 13 and put everything in that we wanted. But, as you might have guessed, the existence of a column like TTTT (the one you are reading now), means that we didn't NEED the whole 14th sheet. But that's okay, because we do want to take you on this "behind the scenes" view. Here's another issue. We get asked this often enough. What's the business with a Lead Tidbit being continued MAYBE on page 10, maybe somewhere else, maybe not at all? Good question. It's like this. We try for the Lead Tidbit to take up its allotted space on pages 1 and 2. If it needs more space to do the idea justice, then page 10 is usually a safe place to predict its continuation, since the Sedra Summary is usually done by then. Page 11 and on is taken by several of our feature columns, which are done before the Sedra Summary and the first two pages. Now, sometimes, the Lead Tidbit comes to a decent enough stopping point at the end of page 2. It would be nice to be able to say a little more, but not crucial. The point has been made, even if the ending is a little rough and/or abrupt. That's what happened last week. It would have been nice to continue the Lead Tidbit, but we ended up not being able to afford the space. The worst situation is the Lead Tidbit not finishing on page 2 and not continuing anywhere either. It would be nice to say that that's never happened. But MI-D'VAR SHEKER TIRCHAK is in this week's sedra, so we won't say that it never happened. Once in a while, we are able to add to the Lead Tidbit or another column that needs more said, in the electronic versions (email and website) of Torah Tidbits. These are prepared after the hard copy issue goes to bed (that's what you say in the publishing business). In the electronic versions there is no fixed limit. Want to add more - do it. Speaking of electronic versions... most people who receive TT by email or who go to the website to read and/or download all of parts of Torah Tidbits, do not have access to the hard copy. But there definitely are people who get the hard copy and also subscribe to the email list or go to the website. Each person has his reason(s). Just as an example, the ParshaPix is in color and can be resized the way you want. In the hard copy, it's in black and white and 6.3 cm wide x approx. 8.5 cm tall. Or, some people prefer not to wait for Shabbat to get their TT and will have access to it on Thursday and Friday via email and the website. Torah Tidbits is on the OU's website, which has many, many other pages to browse and enjoy. You can either get onto www.ou.org and click on buttons from there, or you can go straight to TT via www.ou.org/torah/tt You can subscribe to the email version by writing to tt@ou.org and asking. Now for some serious talk. If you look on BackPage H, you will notice that the Root & Branch lecture this coming week is on What Really Happened in Amona? Under the title of the talk by Mr. Shlomo Wollins is a note from me (Phil) saying that I refused to use the title of the talk as submitted. Allow me to explain. I'm switching to first person singular because my explanation will be a personal editorial of sorts. I am not speaking for the Israel Center, nor for the OU. When I've done this in the past, I usually get flak. If so, so be it. The submitted title was, "Little Ehud's Amona Pogrom". On the one hand, it was tempting to leave the title as is, because when police and or soldiers charge groups of Jews, and use horses, and swing batons freely, cracking heads open, it is hard not to have the words pogrom and Cossacks come to mind. I believe that what happened at Amona was a planned, vicious attack against Religious Zionist protesters, most of whom were teens. I hold acting PM Olmert responsible for what happened. And I also believe it was totally avoidable. I believe that Olmert did not want to "settle" the issue peacefully. He wanted to show how tough he can be in putting down those who dare protest against the governments policies and actions. I believe he wanted to improve his position in the eyes of a segment of the electorate he is wooing. On the other hand, I vehemently oppose the use of the terms Nazi, Hitler, pogrom, etc. for anything that happens in Israel between Jews and Jews. You want to call someone a dictator, you feel that the state has become totalitarian, that this politician or the other is wicked, despicable, criminal, that laws are unjust... whatever. Just say it. And protest. But stay away from certain words and symbols, etc. I believe they demean the memories of K'doshim who died in the Holocaust, and various pogroms and persecutions throughout Jewish History. I remain profoundly disappointed in what Ariel Sharon had turned into, and equally so am I disappointed in the former mayor of Jerusalem whom I once admired. Dismantling of Jewish homes in Eretz Yisrael is obscene. And I don't subscribe to the much touted, "Israel
will have to make painful concessions." I don't see anyone else making
painful concessions. I don't even hear them paying lip-service to it. We
don't have to be FRAI'ERIM. And as long as I'm a roll - pre-Zionism,
Zionism, post-Zionism - whatever they are supposed to mean, a Torah Jew
needs to believe in ERETZ YISRAEL L'AM YISRAEL, AL PI TORAT YISRAEL. And I'm
not referring to a party's slogan; I'm referring to the real thing. G-d
wants us to keep the Torah and live it... in Eretz Yisrael. The point is that many of the seemingly mundane laws that regulate society appear to be based on common sense. What we are asked to do, however, is to realize that the foundation of our laws is based on the Divine will of G-d. The impact of this realization is surely reinforced when we reflect on the seemingly obvious laws pertaining to murder and theft. Equally obvious, however, from the experience of the Second World War, is how man-made laws can be distorted to suit personal and political whims. The Torah's approach to the first of the laws in our parsha - slavery - clues us in to what makes Judaism unique in its approach to law. First, we say to our detractors that Judaism does not a priori sanction slavery, "For they [the Children of Israel] are my servants", states Hashem (Vayikra 25:42). The Jewish servant in our case is a thief who cannot return his debt. Rather than incarcerating him with crooks in jail he is put into the care of a reputable family for a maximum of six years. Thus, through rehabilitation, both the offender and the courts contribute towards the restoration of the social equilibrium. As Rabbi Julius Baker has noted, the Torah is a blueprint for the development of our social and moral conscience. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Mishpatim Homepage]
|
