Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes to find a shidduch

It is with trepidation I write this -- the last time I wrote about Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes I got hundreds of hits for people seeking to buy underpants. But anyway, here goes.

Shirat Devorah posts about a new development in the always exciting field of segulos:

Received via email from a friend of a friend of a friend....

(A true story)

A young lady was waiting for her basherte. But time was quickly ticking by and she was desperate to find him... She went over to her 'fridge where there was a magnetic segulah (see picture on right) for Rabbi Meir Baal HaNess (the Master of the Miracle). Taking some coins from her purse, the young lady dropped it into a tzedaka box whilst reciting this heartfelt request:

"Dear Hashem, I am donating these coins in the merit of the Sage Rabbi Meir baal HaNess. I have lost my basherte, PLEASE, PLEASE HASHEM LET ME FIND HIM SOON!!!"

And yes. So it was. Within a short while she was engaged to be married.

I can't guarantee the soul mate, but I can tell you that my mother once lost a very valuable diamond ring, I dropped some money in the Rabbi Baal Ha"ness pushka, said a prayer, and the ring was found within minutes.

I think I'll add some justification to this. In the beginning of maseches Kiddushin, we learn:

דתניא: ר"ש אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה "כי יקח איש אישה" (דברים כב,כד) ולא כתב "כי תלקח אשה לאיש"? מפני שדרכו של איש לחזר על אשה ואין דרכה של אשה לחזר על איש, משל לאדם שאבדה לו אבידה - מי חוזר על מי? בעל האבידה מחזר על אבידתו.

From Point by Point Summary, for a quick translation:

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: Why did the Torah said that a man takes a woman, and not vice-versa?
2. Answer (R. Shimon): Because it is the way of the man to purse the woman, not vice-versa;

i. Woman was taken (created) from man - it is natural that the one who lost an object, he looks for it.

Thus, one's spouse might be termed a lost article, and the segulah is indeed appropriate!

The "problem" with this is that if we consider the gemara and braysa more carefully, we see that only the woman is considered the avaidah, not the man. Yet in the feminist story being circulated by email, the woman is the one who cannot find her lost article. This segulah is contrary to halacha!

OK, I am speaking a bit facetiously.

Even so, I would deem this chiddush, an innovation -- and not a good one. Whatever you think of the advisability and efficacy of the original segulah -- to find lost articles, at least this is an established one. But now, not only is the standard and time-tested hishtadlus coupled with tefillah insufficient, but all the well-established segulos are insufficient. People practice magic, and experiment. 'Well, this magic worked for this, so even though none of the seforim hakedoshim talk of using it for a shidduch, and talk instead of other segulos, I'm going to try this.' This is the way folk-religious grows, organically.

That it worked for this particular maidel does not convince me in the least. Tons of people are trying segulos, and probably some of them are experimenting in this way with new segulos. And at the same time, they are actively dating and praying. And there is something called Regression Towards the Mean which ensures that at least in some of these cases, the tested segulah will appear to work. Now that this is being forwarded around by email to the credulous and superstitious, I would guess that a lot more maidels will try this segulah, and that in some instances, it will appear to work. Such that ten years from now, this may well be one of the standard, "tested and tried" segulos.

Peyos Up Or Down?

A post from SemGirl from a month ago got me thinking. It was already fodder for one post here on parshablog, in terms of the tzavaah of Rabbi Yehuda haChassid and the practice of not marrying someone with the same name as your parent. But there is also:

A friend of mine really worked overtime, laboriously for months, making a Shidduch. Boy likes girl, girl likes boy , blaaaa blaa, blaaa. Wonderful, they get engaged. Dont say Mazal Tov, just yet. One set of in-laws was adamant that the Choson wear his payos up, the other was just as adamant that he wear them down. Ultimately, it proved to be such a bone of contention that the engagement was called off. After much heated negotiation and mediation, they got back together. Even though, the Shadchan was in Israel on business, they were cajoled into proceding , as its such a volatile situation, it was too risky to wait . I kid you not. I thought of the perfect compromise. How about, one payos up, and one payos down..

And see the discussion at WolfishMusings.

At first glance, it seems like a triviality. And indeed it is. Who cares whether the long peyos are up or down?!

But then I thought about it some more, and I can see in it a dispute which is happening over and over again in modern society. It is a contention between mimetic tradition vs. book learning, and between certain poskim (and kol korei writers who champion said poskim) vs. established Jewish practice.

Indeed, it is quite possible that we can lay the blame for breaking up this shidduch at the doorstep of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita.

How did it develop that the peyos in some communities are worn up, and in others down? There are different theories, but it may be a valid question whether those theories are ex-post-facto rationalizations, or whether they are in sync with the facts.

For example, wear peyos up, based on a Zohar and thus a kabbalistic idea that the peyos of the head should not touch the peyos of the beard. Or one should really wear the peyos down, but people used to hide their peyos because of decrees from the Czar that they should not go about with long peyos. Or it is more convenient to have them back, so that they don't get caught in the heavy machinery. ;)

Apparently, Rav Kanievsky wrote in a sefer (see here) that the reason was the decrees. And nowadays there is no decree, and so the proper thing to do is be proud you are a Jew and wear them down.

Fine. That is a wonderful psak, and many rabbonim the world-over make similar declarations about major or minor things for their constituents.

However, IMHO, it would be a good thing to keep in mind that not everyone is Rav Kanievsky's constituent. Many people in other communities follow other rabbonim and poskim, and they might not suddenly drop the practice of their community, which their rabbis and poskim themselves practice, at the mention of Rav Kanievsky's opinion in the matter. And at the same time, some of Rav Kanievsky's constituents are idiots who do not realize this, and think that Rav Kanievsky and Rav Elyashiv are the gedolei hador, such that anyone who acts otherwise to their opinion is a mechutzef and an apikores.

When people from other communities wear their peyos up behind their ears, they are most certainly not stating that they are embarrassed about being a Jew. Quite likely, they are growing a long beard at the same time, chassidishe malbush, and so on, such that they are clearly identifiable as Jews. Indeed, they may keep their peyos up for convenience, or because they believe that this is a holy minhag of their community, perhaps based on kabbalistic reasons. And even if a great Rabbi from Eretz Yisrael declares that the optimal course of action is otherwise, they have their own mehalech, and own mimetic tradition on the matter.

I wonder whether Rav Kanievsky is aware that when he makes such a statement verbally or in print, some people might then try to impose this as psak on other unwilling groups of frum Jews -- and if he is aware of this, whether he should hedge his remarks to make it clear that he is not condemning those who continue in their own practice. (Just as Rav Yaakov Yosef recently opposed the census in Israel but made clear that he was not protesting against those who follow other positions.)

My guess -- the SemGirl post is not specific on this point -- is that the chassan wore his peyos up behind his ears. Meanwhile, the girl's parents were from a community that wore their peyos down, and or they encountered the statement from Rav Kanievsky, or some other modern posek, that the ideal was wearing them down, so as not to be ashamed of one's Judaism.

The girl's parents told the boy about this, expecting him to comply with the words of the Gedoylim, namely the "psak" of Rav Kanievsky. But should the chassan abandon something he considers an important practice, and minhag of his community, because he has been told that a certain Rav has paskened otherwise? Perhaps he has his own poskim. Should he deligitimize the minhag of his community, when Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi?

The sensible answer is that of course he should cave. Pru eRevu is a Biblical commandment, and whatever kabbalistic reasons, or whatever status of this minhag, in pales in comparison. Plus there is also the consideration of shalom, and of shalom bayis.

In some families, they make a potato kugel and a lukshen kugel, with the second kugel being called the shalom bayis kugel. Because the wife's family's minhag was potato kugel and the
husband's family's minhag was lukshen kugel, and so they make both to preserve both minhagim and to maintain shalom bayis. Perhaps the same should apply here, and the chassan should have caved. (The compromise of one-up and one-down would not have worked, because besides looking silly, it would be a violation on one side, since quote unquote "al pi din," the peyos had to be down.)

But of course, people are people. And the reaction was probably "How dare they say that our minhag is invalid, worse than theirs, and a practice based on shmad? We are not going to cave? We are holy Jews, with holy minhagim, and we are not going to change because of someone ignorantly spouting that our minhag is wrong." And as the personalities on both sides, of both in-laws got into the picture, the fight escalated until finally the shidduch was broken off - at least until it was resurrected.

And they may have had a point. This particular case, or whether the peyos are up or down, is just silly. But in general, what is going to happen in the marriage when the chassan's community has one halachically-grounded practice, which is his minhag, and his in-laws come at him with some psak from Rav Kanievsky or Rav Eliashiv?? To take some examples from Rav Eliashiv, Rav Elyashiv holds that one must wait six hours between yellow cheese and meat (see here), and perhaps he does not hold of this. Or Rav Elyashiv is against modern sheitels. And Rav Eliashiv is apparently against using psychiatrists and psychologists. And against heter mechira. Not to argue against these particular psakim, but the point is that there are certainly other great rabbis who take contrary opinions, which this chassan and his community might well hold of. Is this peyos dispute, and resolution, a good precedent, and a good template for interactions in their marriage in the future? The establishing of such boundaries seems critical.

Plastic Tablecloths and Shidduchim pt. 2

See first part here. In the first post, I noted that the shidduch question of whether the family uses plastic tablecloths on Shabbos was ambiguous; that there was some likelihood that the interpretation of the question people mocked accorded with their own usage; and that there is potentially some use as a rough sociological determiner.

Someone pointed out that there is actually a third interpretation of "plastic tablecloth." There is a mock-linen made of white plastic. It looks like linen, but is plastic, and is quite a dirt-trap. Thus, one would possibly not be so quick to toss it out (as it is somewhat expensive) but rather reuse it, but it can get dingy since one cannot wash it.

I can see some value of the question as part of a general picture. There are plenty of attributes to the boy/girl and his/her family. It is silly as a question which makes or breaks the deal -- one is not dating the tablecloth. But so are many other questions about a potential shidduch. It might be one thing to pay a little attention to, amidst 10,000 other things, and be weighed together with them, when evaluating the person as a person.

The problem with such questions is that often there is a single "correct" answer, and there is a checklist of such questions; also, that these questions are asked before any meeting, to vet potential candidates. The result is that people are trained to look for conformity is silly superficialities and externalities. And these superficialities and externalities are elevated to the level of quasi-halacha, for one does not want to "passul" his, or his children's, shidduch. Simultaneously, since everyone is doing this to conform and be able to answer the shidduch question "correctly," the possible information that could be gleaned from the externality is lost.

Plastic Tablecloths And Shidduchim

There is a famous shidduch question which many promote and many others make fun of, and that is whether they use a plastic tablecloth on Shabbos.

But there is an ambiguity present, and I've heard each of the two possibilities promoted by a (different) rabbi (who shall remain anonymous) as a good shidduch question, to be able to assess sociological compatibility in attitudes towards Shabbos.

One understanding of "plastic tablecloth" is as a thick paper or opaque plastic tablecloth. If so, Shabbos has an informal, weekday-like atmosphere. This could be viewed as treating Shabbos casually.

Another understanding of "plastic tablecloth" (from someone further to the right) is a thin, transparent plastic put over a fancy linen tablecloth, such that when the wine spills, you do not need to spend a lot of time and money cleaning it. The appearance is almost the same as without the plastic there, and many shuls use such plastics for kiddushim (in fact, a lot use the former as well). But this is not giving the optimal to Shabbos, to make it fanciest of the fancy. I wonder if this insistence is more prevalent among Hungarians.

A quick search showed different interpretations. In one shidduch questionnaire, we have:

"Does she use paper tablecloths for Shabbos or cloth?
Is the linen tablecloth covered with plastic?"

where the questions are disjoint.

Here is someone who seems to take "plastic tablecloth" to mean clear plastic over linen:

"Does the family use a plastic tablecloth?
If they do, they're just practical. They don't want a grape juice stain on the white tablecloth. Send that to the cleaners along with the mother's suit, and there goes $40. Who needs to be busy dusting off the crumbs for a half-hour after the meal?"

In this questionnaire, it is only taken as linen vs. opaque plastic:

White damask only
Usually white, occasionally a festive floral
black or red cloth
White plastic or vinyl
Checkered vinyl
None of the above

I wonder -- without giving support to the question -- when people are mocking the question, what exactly do they have in mind by "plastic tablecloth?" And how does this accord with their own personal family practice? I would guess that people are more likely to mock if they feel that they are being cast in the "negative" group.

Must A Potential Bride Mention She Has Not Yet Experienced Menarche? Part II

Having read this teshuva over Rosh haShana, I can perhaps comment on this a bit more. Scans of the teshuva, from Igros Moshe Even HaEzer III, siman 27, are included below. This was already mentioned by DafNotes, and is about whether a potential bride must mention that she had not experienced menarche.

The case is a girl who is already 20, but has not yet experienced menarche. She is about to get married and the girl's father wishes to know if he must inform the groom of this fact before the marriage. There are some doctors who say that once she is married and begins having intercourse, she will begin having her period.

Putting aside all halachic justifications mentioned in the teshuva, Rav Moshe Feinstein's conclusion is that he does not have to tell the groom, not even from a consideration of middat chassidut, but that she and her father should accept upon themselves that if she does not experience menarche or have children within 4 years, she should accept the get from her husband with no complaints, reservations, or claims on him.

One cannot pasken without understanding where the questioner is coming from, and we do not have the benefit of knowing this, in this anonymous teshuva. The question is framed as whether the father, rather than the girl, should reveal this, so perhaps this is from a background in which shidduchim are arranged between parents. Understandably, there might well be stigma if the shidduch is canceled, and if word about her condition gets out, such that she might never get married. This practical concern is certainly something that should factor in. It might all be well and good to be entirely honest, but not if it is to your detriment in a situation in which idiots will misinterpret it past what it actually is.

This framing of it as entirely above board, especially if she agrees to accept divorce with no claims after four years, is not necessarily true. Unfortunately, closed-mindedness when it comes to shidduchim extends to cases of divorce, such that some may consider a man or woman who is divorced to be "damaged goods." People will ask why he was divorced -- was it something about his personality? Or else they will not even ask the question, but will reject the shidduch out of hand without further consideration. If this fellow wishes to have a Jewish home life with a wife and children, a failed marriage with an infertile woman may condemn him to a life of bachelorhood, or at least significantly reduce his dating pool. As such, it is a somewhat mean thing to do to him, or at least to possibly cast him into by withholding this information. On the other hand, revealing this information before marriage may well eliminate this girl's chances of being married entirely, and this will be true for the present prospective groom as well as for any other. There are competing goals here.

Still, if we are to trust these doctors, there is nothing to worry about at all. (Unless they cast it as a "maybe.") If so, why need to appeal to gemaras at all? She will menstruate and be fertile. Unless there is still less likelihood of having children, or of having many children. Rav Moshe does consider in this teshuva, based on readings of the gemara, that she might have fewer children than other women, and whether this would lead to a mekach taut or not.

It is not our place to evaluate these doctors' words. It is certainly plausible. Studies have shown, e.g., that girls living with an unrelated male (e.g. a stepfather) on average experience menarche earlier than other girls. And other species ovulate in response to stimulation, and in fact gemaras discuss this phenomenon. The same might well be true for humans. This would be a separate post, but we will just take these doctors at their word.

Another issue is how to cast the case in the gemara that Rav Moshe applies. That gemara, on Ketubot 10b, reads:

Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the elder [and] said to him, 'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I have not found any blood. She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I am of the family of Dorkati, [the women of] which have neither blood of menstruation nor blood of virginity.' Rabban Gamaliel investigated among her women relatives and he found [the facts to be] in accordance with her words. He [then] said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain. Happy art thou that thou hast been privileged [to marry a woman] of the family of Dorkati.

What is [the meaning of] Dorkati? — A cut-off generation. —

R. Hanina said: Vain consolation Rabban Gamaliel offered to that man, for R. Hiyya taught: As the leaven is wholesome for the dough, so is blood wholesome for a woman. And one has [also] taught in the name of R. Meir: Every woman who has abundant blood has many children.

It has been said: R, Jeremiah b. Abba said: He [Rabban Gamaliel] said to him [the husband]: Be happy with thy bargain. But R. Jose b. Abin said: He said to him: thou hast been punished with thy bargain. We quite understand the one who says 'Thou hast been punished' with thy bargain — this is [according to the view] of R. Hanina. But according to him who says 'Be happy' [with thy bargain], what is the advantage [of such a marriage]? — He [the husband] does not come to any doubt regarding menstruation.

What is the status of this woman, and what is meant by her family being Dorkati? Various commentators give various explanations. I will not offer my own explanation of the gemara at this time. It could mean that this woman has no blood from a torn hymen or menstrual blood but could still have children. It could mean that the women in the family are all barren. It could mean that some of the women in the family are barren. It could mean that the women in the family are not barren but have no blood. It could be from the father's side of the family or from the mother's side of the family.

See Rashi's explanation and the Rama's explanation, and read the teshuva inside.

A few of my own insights. (I may be a bit off, so correct me where I am wrong. But, roughly:) Firstly, menarche is in almost all cases required in order to bear children. A woman ovulates and in preparation for this, a membrane develops on the uterine wall. If the egg released during ovulation is fertilizes, it attaches to this membrane on the uterine wall. Otherwise, the egg does not attach and the membrane breaks down. It then leaves the woman's body as she has her period.

A woman can get pregnant before menarche simply by becoming pregnant at the first ovulation. Thus, the membrane does not break down, but rather she becomes pregnant. Since marriage was much earlier in those days, this situation is not really so out of the ordinary. Theoretically, if nursing held off her period after her first birth, and then she became pregnant again at the next ovulation, a woman could go for years and years without menstruation but with several children. What about the blood from the torn hymen? If it was torn beforehand, or gave way easily with little and thus undetectable blood, we could have this as well. Thus, we can actually find a situation using modern science that could account for this. She would have to be very fertile, though.

She could also have very irregular periods, which would accord with the suggestions of Rabbi Meir that less blood accords with less children. If she had intercourse regularly and thus became pregnant every single, though infrequent time, she also would never see menstrual blood. Usually irregular periods are associated with difficulty conceiving, though.

Another possibility, but nothing I have seen in any literature, is that just as there are cells whose job it is to clean up waste in other part of the body, perhaps these women have some mutation such that they have some cells that attack and process the broken down membrane such that there is no period associated with it. This would be surprising.

Do we associate this condition with few children or with barrenness? This is a dispute.

Let us consider the idea that it indicated barrenness. The problem with saying this is that barrenness is hereditary. If your mother does not have children, neither will you. Yes, that is a joke, but it is true. If the girl's mother was barren, then the girl would not exist.

Therefore, she could not have gotten it from her mother. The problem with that is that a girl is formed by an XX -- an X from the father and an X from the mother. (XY is formed by an X from the mother and a Y from the father.) If she did not get it from her mother, since her mother was not barren, she must have gotten it from her father. But the father does not contribute a Y but rather an X, which came from his own, non-barren mother. Furthermore, if this is indeed something that is the case on the father's side of the family, that implies something like her great-grandfather, grandfather, and father all had daughters who were barren. But this makes no sense, since traits passed from father to son are on the Y chromosome, not the X chromosome. But these daughters are not receiving any Y chromosome, since they have two Xs. The situation would seem to be impossible.

Unless we consider some multi-genic situation, in which the X's being passed along by the fathers have a recessive gene which comes into play with a gene on the wives' side, which happens to be prevalent among women in that particular geographical area. This could lead to many such barren daughters.

Another possibility (mentioned in the teshuva but not in these terms, IIRC) is that some but not all women in this family are barren. Her mother might be normal, but her mother's sister is like her. As a result, there is something passed along on the X chromosome that, when exposed to certain environmental factors, or when combined with other genetic material, will result in her being barren and without seeing this blood.

The other possibility is that these woman actually do have children, even without seeing blood. This was discussed above.

(Another, undiscussed possibility, is that they see blood, but very little of it, such that it is possible to miss. And they also have children.)

Rav Moshe does not try to accord Rema and Rashi to modern medical science so as to figure out the actual case of the gemara. Though he discusses the possibilities, I do not think he necessarily feels that he needs to do this.

That is, whether Rashi or Rama or any other explanation of the gemara are plausible to modern medical science is not really a concern. Rather, these explanations form the historical medical-halachic positions which have developed. Even if scientifically inaccurate, the positions mapped out form important halachic precedent, which Rav Moshe can then apply to the current situation. Assuming she would be barren, would this be considered a mekach taut? We see it would not, from several readings of the gemara under the assumption that a family of Dorkati is barren. Assuming she is not, we have a precedent for a woman presently without menstrual blood who can nonetheless give birth, and thus can marry with no problem. We have precedent which we can extrapolate to this present situation.

One final interesting thing about this teshuva. In the middle of the discussion, he asks why one source bases his proof on what the Rif cites and does not cite, rather than a simple diyuk which can be made from Rashi.




He answers that this is because Rif is lehalacha, while Rashi really comes to give a local perush of the gemara, but not with intent towards pesak. I would note that this is an important idea, especially because there are certain sugyot where people try to make all sorts of plausible and even implausible deductions from Rashi's language, in order to come to some halachic conclusion as to what Rashi intended. One such example is by wigs, where Rashi comes to give a definition of wigs as something a woman with little hair wears so that she appears to have hair. Some try to claim that rather than giving a simple definition, so that you say "Oh! A peah nachrit is a wig!" that Rashi is restricting the permissibility of wigs to only these women. I think such is a bad diyuk, but furthermore that Rashi was never coming to try to declare halacha in the first place. And this statement echoes that.

Regardless, what follows is Rav Moshe's teshuva. The next teshuva is even more interesting, if I may say so. Read it all. For each of these, click on the image to see a much larger, and therefore actually readable, image:

The Danger of Bashert

We read in Kohelet 7:

כז רְאֵה זֶה מָצָאתִי, אָמְרָה קֹהֶלֶת; אַחַת לְאַחַת, לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן.	27 Behold, this have I found, saith Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account;
כח אֲשֶׁר עוֹד-בִּקְשָׁה נַפְשִׁי, וְלֹא מָצָאתִי: אָדָם אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף, מָצָאתִי--וְאִשָּׁה בְכָל-אֵלֶּה, לֹא מָצָאתִי.	28 which yet my soul sought, but I found not; one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

I would darshen this as follows: If you try to only find one woman among these, you will not find. And finding one man among a thousand is also quite difficult. But that is because you are trying to find the one in a thousand, rather than the one who will complement you.

The fact of the matter is that bashert is a matter of dispute among Chazal, whether 40 days before birth it is set, or whether it is according to one's actions, and whether someone else can preempt. The gemara resolves a lot of this with a harmonization about first match and second match, but I do not really buy into that. (I think it is really a machloket.)

Even if one accepts bashert as a phenomenon, this is a phenomenon which is in the hands of Heaven, and not in the hands of man, to find this one bashert or else miss out. If one tries to find אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן, he may very well not be successful.

Rather, a man and a woman each try to find an appropriate person to marry. Look for a person who is kind, who complements you, who will be an ally in life, who you are attracted to, who you can or do love. Then, while dating and then within the marriage, work to make the relationship work. Do chessed for the other person. Figure out what you can do to help and support the other person. That is man's role. Since it is fated to be, this person is your bashert, who God, in his role, sent to you.

In past generations, there were often arranged marriages. Yet those people ended up together. Thus, it was who they were bashert to marry.

Focusing on bashert can drive you nuts. Should I marry this person? He/she has all these positive qualities, but is he/she the best possible match? After all, maybe the one who was "meant-to-be" will come by later. Let us see the next one, and decide. The next person is also nice, but in retrospect, the person I was dating three times ago was nicer in various respects, so why should I "settle" for this one? This is the danger on focusing on bashert.

Perhaps a better attitude would be not to find the "best" one, but to find someone who you really like/love, who is a good person, and with whom you can make a nice Jewish home and a wonderful Jewish life with. Then, if bashert is a real phenomenon, this is your bashert, but it is God's assignment, not your own.

This is of course my own opinion, and what do I know?

Making a Kiddush For Grown Daughters

Rabbi Sedley tried tracking down the source for making a kiddush for a daughter that is born, disproving the common belief that it came from a story involving the Steipler:

Someone quoted an amazing story from the Steipler Gaon, related to this exact point. A person came to the Steipler and told him that he needed a blessing for his daughter. She was 27 years old and in need of a shidduch [marriage partner].

The Steipler asked him if it was his first daughter. The man replied that it was actually his third daughter. The Steipler then asked if when this daughter was born, her father made a Kiddush to celebrate her birth. The man admitted that although he had made celebrations when his first two daughters were born, by the third daughter, he, in fact, did not make a Kiddush to celebrate her birth.

The Steipler then advised him to go make a Kiddush for this 27 year old daughter.

He cites statements from the Steipler's son that the story is false.

Perhaps the story is attributed to the Steipler because of his name being synonymous with "shadchan." Or perhaps it really happened with the Belzer Rebbe. Or perhaps it is one of those stories that gets attributed to many different people, but happened either to one of them or none of them.

Regardless, the advice is a good one, and I would have given it myself, had the fellow come to me. Not for any of the mystical reasons that usually accompany the story:

"Who knows, there might have been some neighbor or someone you met in shul who you could have invited by saying 'come, I'm making a Kiddush, I had a new daughter born this week'. He would have come in and taken a piece of cake and a little kuggle. He would have made a 'lechayim' and taken a shot of whiskey and then wished you: 'you should have an easy upbringing for her and you should find a good shidduch and be able to marry her off to a fine Talmid Chochom'. You could have responded "AMEN!" But you did not let that happen. You prevented your daughter from receiving all those blessings.

but rather for more practical reasons.

That is, there is this established custom among some people of making this kiddush. He missed out on it. Therefore, he has an excuse now to make a kiddush in his daughter's honor. People will now come to the kiddush, hear that it is for his single daughter, and become aware that he has a daughter who is looking for a shidduch.

In effect, it is a debutante ball, or coming out party. But with the veneer of Jewishness, which is important in order for some elements to see it as acceptable.

In that respect, it is probably more effective when made for a grown daughter than for an infant. But then, whichever Rebbe gave this advice was quite possibly not intending that this have such wide-ranging applicability (if he even gave the aforementioned reason.) Note that even for an infant daughter, it has the effect of announcing it to the community, at which point we have to hope that the community has good memories.

Just my non-mystical take on this practice of late-kiddush, and this story.

Update: I forgot to include a link to Rabbi Sedley's blog, where he discusses it. Here is such a link.