MISC section - contents: Some of them are answered by Eretz Hemdah, the Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, headed by Rav Yosef Carmel and Rav Moshe Ehrenreich, founded by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l, to prepare rabbanim and dayanim to serve the National Religious community in Israel and abroad. Ask the Rabbi is a joint venture of the OU, Yerushalayim Network, Eretz Hemdah... and the Israel Center. The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... Q: During a milchig meal, I saw a crumb on the table, which I assumed was from bread. I put it on my tongue, and then realized it was a crumb from the coating of chicken schnitzel. Of course, I immediately spit it out. Could I continue the milchig meal or was I now flesihig? A: We will analyze the Rishonim’s explanation for waiting six hours (or however long your minhag requires) between eating meat and milk and see what applies to your case. We will then see the Acharonim’s rulings in your case to confirm the analysis. The Gemara (Chulin 105a) requires one to wait the time in between meals after eating fleishig before eating milchig, but not vice versa. Rashi (ad loc.) explains that certain fattiness comes out from the meat one eats which stays in the mouth for quite some time. The Rambam (Ma’achalot Asurot 9:28) says that the issue is the possibility that some meat will remain between the teeth. Many (including the Tur, Yoreh Deah 89) discuss practical differences between the explanations. One is, if one chewed meat in order to take it out of his mouth and feed to a baby (do not pass judgment on the pre-Gerber era). The Rambam would require waiting because it is possible that meat will be between the teeth. Rashi would not require waiting because the taste lingers only when one swallows the meat (see Shach, Yoreh Deah 89:2). Another is, if one finds meat between the teeth after six hours. The Rambam apparently assumes that after so much time, the meat is no longer problematic. According to Rashi, it is assumed to be a problem. We accept the stringencies that follow from both explanations (Tur, ibid.; see Shulchan Aruch & Rama 89:1). If we assume, as above, that even chewing does not activate Rashi’s issue, then briefly having a fleishig crumb on one’s tongue certainly does not. Regarding the Rambam, it seems illogical to be concerned about meat between the teeth if there was no chewing to involve the teeth. Of the cases discussed by early authorities, this is most similar to one who found and removed a piece of meat from between the teeth after six hours. In both cases, meat is in the mouth without recent eating. The Shach says that even according to Rashi that it is still considered fleishig, one does not have to wait another six hours from that point. However, the Rama (ibid.) says that one should rinse his mouth before eating milchig. The Aruch HaShulchan (ad loc.:5) puts the Rama in perspective: it is illogical that a mouth had meat in it one moment and one could put milk in it the next without taking steps to remove residue. Most poskim assume that the specific manner of removing the residue is the same as when wants to eat fleishig soon after milchig. There, we pasken that you need to rinse the mouth with liquid (hadacha) and eat a solid food to absorb the remaining taste (kinu’ach) (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.:2). According to our analysis, then, you could continue your milchig meal after rinsing the mouth and eating a pareve food first. However, sometimes practice is stricter than analysis would indicate. To take an example “close to home”, the Pri Megadim (MZ 89:1) demonstrates that if one only chewed an otherwise pareve food that absorbed meat gravy, he has no innate reason to wait six hours. Yet, he says that due to the concept of LO P’LUG (not distinguishing between similar cases that fall into the same category), he should wait six hours. Indeed, poskim accept this stringency (Pitchei Teshuva ad loc.:1; Kaf Hachayim ad loc.:3). In our case, though, poskim do not equate tasting food with a tongue to chewing it, and one does not need to wait six hours (Pri Chadash, ad loc.:18;Aruch Hashulchan, ad loc.:14; Darchei Teshuva, ad loc.:10; Kaf HaChayim, ibid.:4). The two former sources say that kinu’ach and hadacha are required; washing hands is probably not required (see Rama, ibid.:3). (Your case included additional mitigating circumstances that make leniency easier; however, we did not need to use them.) 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 During the previous century, the Orthodox community fought many battles in order to preserve authentic Judaism. Battles were fought for Shabbat, kashrut, Torah study and Jewish education with tremendous sacrifice and devotion, and the success of these battles enables us today to take these matters for granted. They may now be observed with relative ease because of the willingness of Jews to sacrifice things that were important to them at the time - material and financial well- being, and social acceptance - in the service of God and to ensure the integrity of the Jewish nation. Sacrifice is fundamental to our service of God,
and each generation must identify its unique challenges, and be willing to
sacrifice to face those challenges. It appears that one of the few difficult
things left for Jews living in comfort and freedom is enhancing and
actualizing their connection with Eretz Israel. There have always been
extenuating circumstances exempting Jews from fulfillment of the mitzva of
Yishuv Eretz Israel. But with so few areas of Jewish observance that require
true sacrifice today, increased focus on finding ways to fulfill this mitzva
is an authentic way to sacrifice something of ourselves in the service of
God. 2) The Meshech Chachma answers that since the sprinkling of the Olah and Shelamim were not done by hand but, rather, through the use of a vessel, the other Kohanim would join in and partake of the sprinkling together with the original Kohein. Regarding the sin offering, however, since the Torah mandates that its sprinkling be done using the finger, it would be disgusting for another kohein to dip his finger into the same blood. Thus, the Torah emphasizes that this sprinkling should be done by the original Kohein alone. 3) Rav Moshe Feinstein teaches that HAKOHEIN is
used regarding a basic, already prepared sacrifice. Since he is not really
contributing to the sacrifice, knowing simply that he is a Kohein is enough.
BNEI AHARON HAKOHANIM is used when the sacrifice requires additional
preparation. The Kohein must remind himself where he comes from and how he
is held to a high standard of proper behavior while performing this
important service. When the Torah describes placing a fire on the altar, the
term BNEI AHARON HAKOHEIN is used since they are carrying out a role similar
to Aharon HaKohein who brought heavenly fire down to the Altar. They must
try to rise themselves to the highest of levels as they attempt to emulate
Aharon, himself, when doing so. [6] Portion for the Portion by
Rakel Berenbaum - FEEDback to
berenbau@actcom.net.il When discussing the meal offerings, the verse says that they should not be brought out of leavened dough (chametz). The verse continues to tell us that “this is because you may not burn anything fermented (se’or) or sweet (dvash) as a fire offering to Hashem". And all burnt offerings should have salt (2:11-13). What is wrong with fermentation and sweetness? Why aren't they allowed in the meal offerings? And why is salt required? Rabbi Pliskin brings an explanation from Rabbi Mordechai Gifter. Both yeast (se’or) and honey (d’vash) are external additives. Yeast is added to make a dough rise higher and honey is added to make things sweeter. Both of these add something that is not present in the essence of the original object. Salt is different. Salt is a flavor enhancer - it brings out the flavor of the food, but only the flavor that is already there. There is a subtle lesson here for all of us. When
serving Hashem, we should not be like yeast that distorts what is there or
like honey that is sweet but is something borrowed from the outside. We
should not try to worship Hashem in the means of others. We should not try
to be someone else. Rather we should follow the model of salt. We should
take all the G-d-given skills and talents that we have and enhance them - be
the best person that we could be, but we must be ourselves and not try to be
someone else. To keep your starter alive it must be "fed" every
2-4 weeks by adding more flour and water and allowing it to stand in a warm
place or 24 hours. Because a Sefer Torah is hand-written, what words appear on what lines and what is at the top of any particular column will not necessarily match up from scroll to scroll. Writing styles differ from Sofer to Sofer and even though there is a strict body of halacha that governs the way letters are written, there will be differences, depending upon the exact size of the quill point, the exact dimensions of the parchment, and other factors. There is a long-standing Tradition that six particular columns are regulated as to what is at the top of the column. The first of the six - the most obvious - is the first column of the Torah, which begins with the word B’REISHIT. One could not expect otherwise. The others are less obvious. The words B’KAH SH’MO form amnemonic device for the six column starters: BET-YUD-HEI SHIN-MEM-VAV. The words refer to G-d’s name YUD-KAY (as we say it, i.e. YUD followed by a HEI). The phrase is from T’hilim 68:5, which is quoted in the passage recited as the Torah is carried from the Aron to the Bima/Shulchan on Shabbat and Yom Tov morning. We have the BET already. The YUD is for YEHUDA in the blessings of Yaakov to his sons in Parshat Vaichi. HEI is for HABA-IM, which begins the unusually wide column containing AZ YASHIR, the Song of the Sea. SHIN is the problem letter, since there is an unsettled dispute as to what it refers too. Some say, SHAMOR L’CHA in Parshat Ki Tisa, immediately after the Torah reading for Fast Days. Others say it is from Parshat Acharei and the words SH’NEI HA-S’IRIM GORALOT. Standard practice is to plan to have both possibilities at the top of a column. MEM is for MA TOVU in Parshat Balak. And the VAV is for V’A’IDA (from Parshat Vayeilech) at the top of the first of two HAAZINU columns. Next. There is a long-standing Scribal practice (although not as long-standing as the B’KAH SH’MO practice) to arrange the writing of a Sefer Torah so that every column (except as above) starts with a VAV. This is not a binding practice, but is considered a HIDUR and is most commonly done. In checking copies of two different Torah scrolls, one was found to have 245 columns and the other had 247. Obviously, there are differences in the column arrangements, but not for the B’KAH SH’MO columns. And, rather than choose one side of the SHIN dispute or the other, Torahs are written with both SHIN words at the top of columns. B’KAH SH’MO refers to six columns, and the second SHIN to make seven and take away the VAV word, since we are about to make a statement about a VAV-SEFER. All columns except for six, in most Torah scrolls (especially those written in the last many decades), begin with a VAV. BTW, in some Chumashim, the six (or seven) words are marked with a little circle and somewhere in a margin, we are told that the word is one of B’KAH SH’MO. Another point. Among old Sifrei Torah, one can see
many differences. VAV s’farim and ones without VAV heading all columns
except for... 42 line columns, 48 line columns. Even 66 line columns.
Different embellishments on special letters. And certainly, different column
arrangements. However, newer Sifrei Torah (maybe for the last 25-30 years or
so), are being copied from the popular Dovidovich Tikun, resulting in much,
much more uniformity from Torah to Torah than ever before. There will always
be differences because of stretched and/or squeezed letters, heavy and light
hand of a Sofer, etc. The Aye-Aye has been described as "a Walt Disney
witch's black cat with a touch of E.T. thrown in.” Undeserved reputation for
evil... The following two quite different "pieces" are not part of Birkat Ilanot, but are appropriate to share at your Shabbat table when the topic of the Trees Bracha comes up. Gemara, Masechet Taanit (5b-6a) TREES by Joyce Kilmer Moshe must have been on tenterhooks to know when and how he would receive the summons to appear before Hashem within the confines of the newly built Mishkan. For, according to Ramban, Moshe was filled with awe as he contemplated the notion that G-d dwelt within its walls. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Book of Vayikra opens with the unusual declaration that G-d called to Moshe. As Rashi describes it, Hashem beckons Moshe in a loud voice that only he can hear; it is a loving invitation, a psychological preparation for a personal rendezvous with the Almighty. To which, we are told, Moshe responds with the exclamation, "Hineni" - I am at your service. In our opening verse, the word Vayikra ("And he called") is written with a miniature letter Alef. The letter Alef stands for one, me alone; it also means to train. The implication is that if we can subdue the egocentric Me and, like Moshe, endeavor to walk humbly in the ways of G-d, we might too maximize our potential to hear the voice of the beckoning Father. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Vayikra Homepage]
|
