Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
If you shave with scissors (or an electric shaver), cow-shaped demons will trample on the corners of your beard
The Levush writes about removing one's beard with scissors, even with misparayim ke'ein taar, that is permitted:
So too Rav Yosef Karo in Shulchan Aruch, same seif. And see him in Beit Yosef, where he cites the Rambam, Tosafot and Rosh as saying the same, that the beard with misparayim ke'eyn taar, it is permitted even lechatchila.
That is halacha. Others interpret sources differently and thus might conclude otherwise, as a halachic matter. That is fine.
For kabbalistic reasons, people might also oppose shaving, even with scissors. Fine.
What I don't like is when those kabbalistic reasons become scare tactics to persuade even those who otherwise have what to rely upon, as pure halacha.
Here is the pasuk in Kedoshim, in Vayikra 19:27:
I found the following in a sefer of collected writings of R' Eleazer miGermayza, the Rokeach (1178-1238), a student of R' Yehuda HaChassid:
'Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard' -- even with scissors. Rav Zalman, the son of Rav Yehuda HaChassid za"l, wrote. [Meaning?,] When I learned in Speyer before the Rav, Rav Yedidya za"l, I found in his Beit Midrash a handwritten note of the Rav, Rav Zalman, and this is its language:
Abba Mari [My father and teacher], za"l [Rav Yehuda HaChassid] told me that in his days, there was a incident with a rich man in Speyer who would shave [or trim? מגלח] his beard with scissors, and Abba Mari came and protested, yet he did not listed to his words. He said that he was an istenis [overly sensitive] and could not bear the beard. Abba Mari told him, you should now know that your end will be bitter, for after your death, demons which are like cows will come and trample on the corners of your beard, for this is the punishment on those who mar the corners of their beards. And know that this is what is hinted at in the Torah in the pasuk, of לֹא תַקִּפוּ, פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ.
And when this rich man died, all the gedolim [perhaps important wealthy elite?] of Speyer were sitting by him, and Abba Mori was was there, and he wrote a certain [Divine] name and tossed it upon this deceased rich man. And immediately he [the deceased] stood up on his feet, and all those sitting there fled from before him because of the fear. And this rich man began to tear at his hear and pull out his hair.
Abba Mori said to him: How are you?
He [the deceased] said to him: Woe is me, that I did not listen to you.
Abba Mori said to him: Relate to me what is done to your soul.
He said to him: When my soul left, a demon came, similar to a large cow, and brought a vessel filled with tar, burning sulfur, and salt, and received my soul and placed it into it [the vessel] and I was unable to leave there. And an angel came from the Heavenly court and tool that vessel with my soul from the demon and brought it before the great court of the Fashioner of souls, and then, a bat kol came out from before the court and asked me, did you read and learn? I said to it, I [can] read and learn. Immediately, he commanded to bring a chumash and said to me, "read in it." And immediately, when I opened the sefer, I found written וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ, and I did not know what to answer.
Immediately, I heard a voice announce: Give the soul of this one over to the lowest level of Gehinnom.
A bat kol went out and said: Wait on this one. Yehuda [HaChassid] my son needs to ask him a question.
And now he pleads for mercy on the soul that would speak to him [?], that he soul would not descend to Sheol.
End quote.
Come and see, my brother and friend, how great is the punishment is one who shaves his beard, even with scissors, and all the more so and kal vachomer with a razor, Hashem spare us from this punishment. End quote.
(In the sefer Yayin Hameshumar and in sefer HaGan Hameyuchas of Rabbenu Yehuda HaChassid.)"
Note that there may well be strong halachic basis for the position that shaving even with scissors is prohibited.
What I find interesting -- though I suppose it should be obvious -- is that just like the identical dispute today, this is not a dry halachic debate, in which each side reads its sources. Stories like the above read like propaganda or like emotional, psychological and theological warfare. And make the claim to know definitively what will happen in the next world to those who don't act in practice with what they claim is halacha. Not that the rich man in the (presumably fictional) story necessarily had a legitimate halachic defense in saying he was an istenis. (Maybe he did.) But my guess is that there were those who held like Tosafot et al and shaved with scissors, and so it was necessary to demonize them and the practice.
סעיף י
על השחתת פאת הזקן אינו חייב אלא כשמגלח בתער, שזהו נקרא "השחתה". אבל במספריים אפילו כעין תער – מותר.
ומיהו המדקדקים נזהרים כשמספרים במספריים, שאין עושין בזוג התחתון כלום אלא בעליון. כי חוששין שמא יעשה כל הגילוח בתחתון, דשמא פי הזוג בעליון לא יחתוך והוי כעין תער ממש. מיהו תחת הגרון אין לחוש לזה, שאין שם עיקר מקום הפאות.
So too Rav Yosef Karo in Shulchan Aruch, same seif. And see him in Beit Yosef, where he cites the Rambam, Tosafot and Rosh as saying the same, that the beard with misparayim ke'eyn taar, it is permitted even lechatchila.
That is halacha. Others interpret sources differently and thus might conclude otherwise, as a halachic matter. That is fine.
For kabbalistic reasons, people might also oppose shaving, even with scissors. Fine.
What I don't like is when those kabbalistic reasons become scare tactics to persuade even those who otherwise have what to rely upon, as pure halacha.
Here is the pasuk in Kedoshim, in Vayikra 19:27:
| כז לֹא תַקִּפוּ, פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם; וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית, אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ. | 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. |
I found the following in a sefer of collected writings of R' Eleazer miGermayza, the Rokeach (1178-1238), a student of R' Yehuda HaChassid:
'Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard' -- even with scissors. Rav Zalman, the son of Rav Yehuda HaChassid za"l, wrote. [Meaning?,] When I learned in Speyer before the Rav, Rav Yedidya za"l, I found in his Beit Midrash a handwritten note of the Rav, Rav Zalman, and this is its language:
Abba Mari [My father and teacher], za"l [Rav Yehuda HaChassid] told me that in his days, there was a incident with a rich man in Speyer who would shave [or trim? מגלח] his beard with scissors, and Abba Mari came and protested, yet he did not listed to his words. He said that he was an istenis [overly sensitive] and could not bear the beard. Abba Mari told him, you should now know that your end will be bitter, for after your death, demons which are like cows will come and trample on the corners of your beard, for this is the punishment on those who mar the corners of their beards. And know that this is what is hinted at in the Torah in the pasuk, of לֹא תַקִּפוּ, פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ.
And when this rich man died, all the gedolim [perhaps important wealthy elite?] of Speyer were sitting by him, and Abba Mori was was there, and he wrote a certain [Divine] name and tossed it upon this deceased rich man. And immediately he [the deceased] stood up on his feet, and all those sitting there fled from before him because of the fear. And this rich man began to tear at his hear and pull out his hair.
Abba Mori said to him: How are you?
He [the deceased] said to him: Woe is me, that I did not listen to you.
Abba Mori said to him: Relate to me what is done to your soul.
He said to him: When my soul left, a demon came, similar to a large cow, and brought a vessel filled with tar, burning sulfur, and salt, and received my soul and placed it into it [the vessel] and I was unable to leave there. And an angel came from the Heavenly court and tool that vessel with my soul from the demon and brought it before the great court of the Fashioner of souls, and then, a bat kol came out from before the court and asked me, did you read and learn? I said to it, I [can] read and learn. Immediately, he commanded to bring a chumash and said to me, "read in it." And immediately, when I opened the sefer, I found written וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ, and I did not know what to answer.Immediately, I heard a voice announce: Give the soul of this one over to the lowest level of Gehinnom.
A bat kol went out and said: Wait on this one. Yehuda [HaChassid] my son needs to ask him a question.
And now he pleads for mercy on the soul that would speak to him [?], that he soul would not descend to Sheol.
End quote.
Come and see, my brother and friend, how great is the punishment is one who shaves his beard, even with scissors, and all the more so and kal vachomer with a razor, Hashem spare us from this punishment. End quote.
(In the sefer Yayin Hameshumar and in sefer HaGan Hameyuchas of Rabbenu Yehuda HaChassid.)"
Note that there may well be strong halachic basis for the position that shaving even with scissors is prohibited.
What I find interesting -- though I suppose it should be obvious -- is that just like the identical dispute today, this is not a dry halachic debate, in which each side reads its sources. Stories like the above read like propaganda or like emotional, psychological and theological warfare. And make the claim to know definitively what will happen in the next world to those who don't act in practice with what they claim is halacha. Not that the rich man in the (presumably fictional) story necessarily had a legitimate halachic defense in saying he was an istenis. (Maybe he did.) But my guess is that there were those who held like Tosafot et al and shaved with scissors, and so it was necessary to demonize them and the practice.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Videocast lesson on parashat Tazria
Due to technical difficulties, I only have the first 8 minutes out of 25. Discussing Rashbam and Rashi on Isha Ki Tazria.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
YUTorah on Tazria-Metzora
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Guys rule in Tazria
I post the following not because I agree with it -- I don't -- but to make the point that sometimes Torah thoughts are colored by cultural attitudes of the time. In the Midrash Rabba on Tazria, in Baal HaTurim on the parsha, and much more clearly in the following gematria tapestry by Rabbenu Ephraim ben Shimson (a student of the Rokeach, from the 12th and 13th century), there is a decided anti-female and pro-male bias, which cannot be adequately addressed by apologetics. Perhaps we may realize that these remazim are simply supports after the fact, and prove nothing.
"Isha Ki Tazria: אשה is the same gematria as דבש [honey], and this is what Shlomo Hamelech hinted at in his wisdom (in Mishlei 25:27),
אָכֹל דְּבַשׁ הַרְבּוֹת לֹא-טוֹב; . It is not good to eat much honey [... so for men to search out their own glory is not glory].
[Re: eating too much honey] That whoever is drenched in sexual congress, his years are shortened, his teeth fall out, his eyelashes fall out, a bad odor exudes from his mouth and underarms, the hair of his legs increases, and many maladies come upon him aside from these.
Veyalda Zachar: זכר [male] in gematria is ברכה [blessing]. הבת [the daughter] in gematria is ארור [accursed]. That is to say that the male progeny is an addition of blessing while the daughter reduces the money of her father.
Another interpretation: זכר should be parsed as זה כר [this is the kikar], that is to say, this one brings his loaf with him. נקבה [female] is נקי בה. [J: I am not sure. Clean of it?]
The questioner asks: Why for a female child does she [the mother] sit impurity twice as much as for a male child. [That is, 14 days instead of 7 days?] And the answer is that the birth of a male child is joy, so that she does not bleed out such an abundance of blood. But by a female child, because of her great anguish and as a cause for concern about herself, she pours forth a lot of blood. And in accordance with the increase or decrease of the blood are the days of impurity and impurity. And some say that she keeps [seven days] for her own impurity and [an additional seven] for the impurity of her daughter, which are in sum fourteen days."
It was not easy living in medieval times. And a son who will work and support his parents in their old age was looked at as a blessing. A daughter who would not do so, and indeed would be a draw of money, in the form of a dowry, would be looked at as not such a blessing. And in accordance with this perception were the derashot constructed.
"Isha Ki Tazria: אשה is the same gematria as דבש [honey], and this is what Shlomo Hamelech hinted at in his wisdom (in Mishlei 25:27), אָכֹל דְּבַשׁ הַרְבּוֹת לֹא-טוֹב; . It is not good to eat much honey [... so for men to search out their own glory is not glory].
[Re: eating too much honey] That whoever is drenched in sexual congress, his years are shortened, his teeth fall out, his eyelashes fall out, a bad odor exudes from his mouth and underarms, the hair of his legs increases, and many maladies come upon him aside from these.
Veyalda Zachar: זכר [male] in gematria is ברכה [blessing]. הבת [the daughter] in gematria is ארור [accursed]. That is to say that the male progeny is an addition of blessing while the daughter reduces the money of her father.
Another interpretation: זכר should be parsed as זה כר [this is the kikar], that is to say, this one brings his loaf with him. נקבה [female] is נקי בה. [J: I am not sure. Clean of it?]
The questioner asks: Why for a female child does she [the mother] sit impurity twice as much as for a male child. [That is, 14 days instead of 7 days?] And the answer is that the birth of a male child is joy, so that she does not bleed out such an abundance of blood. But by a female child, because of her great anguish and as a cause for concern about herself, she pours forth a lot of blood. And in accordance with the increase or decrease of the blood are the days of impurity and impurity. And some say that she keeps [seven days] for her own impurity and [an additional seven] for the impurity of her daughter, which are in sum fourteen days."
It was not easy living in medieval times. And a son who will work and support his parents in their old age was looked at as a blessing. A daughter who would not do so, and indeed would be a draw of money, in the form of a dowry, would be looked at as not such a blessing. And in accordance with this perception were the derashot constructed.
Monday, April 08, 2013
Eat this red lentil stew; it will put color in your cheeks!
In a comment on a recent post, a commenter pointed me to an interesting explanation of Seforno, and sought some clarification:
And Seforno says on this:
"Therefore was his named called Edom: When they saw that he was so sold over to his indecent work such that he was not in the manner of man, such that he was only able recognize the color of the stew [rather than that it was stew], that called him 'Edom!', in the language of command [an imperative]. That is to say, turn red! And your color will be red in the [matter of the] pouring of the red."
I do not think that Rav Ovadia Seforno was saying that his color would medically change as a result of the eating of the stew. He studied medicine and, while it is possible that medieval medicine might maintain that red foods turn a person red, I don't think that the words of Seforno's commentary merit that explanation. This is what people are telling him to turn, as a result of the red food.
I think he was saying that, while mocking him, people were instructing him to turn red. Perhaps to blush in embarrassment.
What do you think?
(Of course, there still stands the other parallel source for Edom identification, that he was already born ruddy:
כה וַיֵּצֵא הָרִאשׁוֹן אַדְמוֹנִי, כֻּלּוֹ כְּאַדֶּרֶת שֵׂעָר; וַיִּקְרְאוּ שְׁמוֹ, עֵשָׂו.
)
How to understand Sforno comment on Genesis 25.30 And Esau said to Jacob, "Pour into [me] some of this red, red [pottage], for I am faint"; he was therefore named Edom. It says, that he was named "red", because eat red food. Does food affect human color?The pasuk in parashat Toledot reads:
| ל וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא מִן-הָאָדֹם הָאָדֹם הַזֶּה--כִּי עָיֵף, אָנֹכִי; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא-שְׁמוֹ, אֱדוֹם. | 30 And Esau said to Jacob: 'Let me swallow, I pray thee, some of this red, red pottage; for I am faint.' Therefore was his name called Edom. |
And Seforno says on this:
פסוק לעַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמו אֱדום. כְּשֶׁרָאוּ שֶׁכָּל כָּךְ הִתְמַכֵּר לִמְלַאכְתּו הַנִּפְסֶדֶת אֲשֶׁר לא כְּתורַת הָאָדָם, עַד שֶׁלּא הִכִּיר בַּנָּזִיד כִּי אִם צִבְעו, קָרְאוּ אותו "אֱדום"! לְשׁון צִוּוּי, כְּלומַר: הִתְאַדֵּם! וֶהֱיֵה צָבוּעַ אָדם בְּהַלְעָטַת הָאָדם.I think I understand this comment, but it gets a little unclear towards the end. Here is how I would translate it:
"Therefore was his named called Edom: When they saw that he was so sold over to his indecent work such that he was not in the manner of man, such that he was only able recognize the color of the stew [rather than that it was stew], that called him 'Edom!', in the language of command [an imperative]. That is to say, turn red! And your color will be red in the [matter of the] pouring of the red."
I do not think that Rav Ovadia Seforno was saying that his color would medically change as a result of the eating of the stew. He studied medicine and, while it is possible that medieval medicine might maintain that red foods turn a person red, I don't think that the words of Seforno's commentary merit that explanation. This is what people are telling him to turn, as a result of the red food.
I think he was saying that, while mocking him, people were instructing him to turn red. Perhaps to blush in embarrassment.
What do you think?
(Of course, there still stands the other parallel source for Edom identification, that he was already born ruddy:
כה וַיֵּצֵא הָרִאשׁוֹן אַדְמוֹנִי, כֻּלּוֹ כְּאַדֶּרֶת שֵׂעָר; וַיִּקְרְאוּ שְׁמוֹ, עֵשָׂו.
)
Friday, April 05, 2013
Videocast lesson on parashat Shemini
Hopefully this works.
I discuss:
* Vay Hi == it was woe == death of Nadav and Avihu
* The trup on the first pasuk
* Does Shemini mean the 8th day of miluim or / and the 8th day of Nissan?
* Why does the egel for a chatas imply atonement for the chet ha'egel. On this, I should have mentioned also that hakrev lifnei Hashem implies that Aharon himself is coming close again to Hashem. Also that it is a chatas, a sin offering. Instead, all I mentioned is that it is a shift from Moshe to Aharon, and simultaneously a shift from Par for a chatas into Egel for a chatas.
YUTorah on parashas Shemini
a
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Shaving on Chol HaMoed
See the guest post on Hirhurim by Rabbi Michael Broyde on this topic.
This post is not halacha lemaaseh, but just some of my own musings on the subject.
The Mishna in Moed Katan 13b-14a reads:
However, what does מגלחין mean? The verb encompasses both shaving and hair-cutting. But since most Israelites in the time of Chazal did not shave their beards, since it was forbidden, this Mishna would not be coming to forbid shaving, but rather what Israelites did, namely hair-cutting.
What I am saying is that we can treat מגלחין as a homonym, meaning both shaving and hair-cutting, and take care not to select the wrong one of the two meanings. (I get the sense that in modern Hebrew giluach means only shaving while tisporet means a hair-cut. Is this correct?)
What was the reason for the rabbinic prohibition of hair-cutting during the moed? The gemara elaborates (Moed Katan 14a):
So that they should not enter into the Regel when they are unkempt. And note the two activities לספר ולכבס, to cut hair and launder clothing.
Hair-cutting is typically a maaseh uman, done by a professional barber. And indeed, the barbers stayed open until chatzos on Erev Pesach. In the Mishna in Pesachim perek 4:
Why? Because כל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים, הרי זה משובח. :)
People nowadays do not seek to get their hair, on the top of their head, cut on chol hamoed. The only question is shaving. And shaving nowadays is typically self-administered and done quickly, without any particular skill of precision. It is a maaseh hedyot rather than maaseh uman.
And it is something you need to do daily to look kempt. It is akin to showering or combing your hair. Had electric shavers existed in the time of Chazal and people used them as part of their daily grooming, it stands to reason that Chazal would not have gone out of their way to include it in their decree.
That is, it was not part of the initial decree and further, given the reason behind the ban of giluach, they would not have wanted to include it.
[I am saying something different than the Rav here. As I understand it, he would say that shaving was part of the original gezeira but that since societal norms and what is being done have changed. to the extent that shaving before the moed and refraining from shaving during the moed accomplishes the very opposite of Chazal's intent, the gezeira does not apply. And that this is different from the typical simple case of batla taam, where it appears to be a machlokes whether the decree falls automatically, because there it is just neutral, rather than counter to their very purpose.]
Someone also pointed out the following. The Mishna lists laundering and hair-cutting together. The Rambam in Mishneh Torah, hilchot Shevitat Yom Tov, 7:21 writes:
This post is not halacha lemaaseh, but just some of my own musings on the subject.
The Mishna in Moed Katan 13b-14a reads:
Thus, only a subset of people may מגלחין during the chol hamoed. The straight implication is that most Israelites may not.מתני' ואלו מגלחין במועד הבא ממדינת הים ומבית השביה והיוצא מבית האסורין והמנודה שהתירו לו חכמים וכן מי שנשאל לחכם והותר והנזיר והמצורע מטומאתו לטהרתו ואלו מכבסין במועד הבא ממדינת הים ומבית השביה והיוצא מבית האסורין ומנודה שהתירו לו חכמים וכן מי שנשאל לחכם והותר מטפחות הידים ומטפחות הספרים ומטפחות הספג הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות וכל העולין מטומאה לטהרה הרי אלו מותרין ושאר כל אדם אסורין:
However, what does מגלחין mean? The verb encompasses both shaving and hair-cutting. But since most Israelites in the time of Chazal did not shave their beards, since it was forbidden, this Mishna would not be coming to forbid shaving, but rather what Israelites did, namely hair-cutting.
What I am saying is that we can treat מגלחין as a homonym, meaning both shaving and hair-cutting, and take care not to select the wrong one of the two meanings. (I get the sense that in modern Hebrew giluach means only shaving while tisporet means a hair-cut. Is this correct?)
What was the reason for the rabbinic prohibition of hair-cutting during the moed? The gemara elaborates (Moed Katan 14a):
גמ' ושאר כל אדם מאי טעמא אסורין כדתנן אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד אסורין לספר ולכבס ובחמישי מותרין מפני כבוד השבת ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' אלעזר מ"ט כדי שלא יכנסו למשמרתן כשהן מנוולין הכא נמי כדי שלא יכנסו לרגל כשהן מנוולין
So that they should not enter into the Regel when they are unkempt. And note the two activities לספר ולכבס, to cut hair and launder clothing.
Hair-cutting is typically a maaseh uman, done by a professional barber. And indeed, the barbers stayed open until chatzos on Erev Pesach. In the Mishna in Pesachim perek 4:
ד,ז [ו] רבי מאיר אומר, כל מלאכה שהתחיל בה קודם לארבעה עשר, גומרה בארבעה עשר; אבל לא יתחיל בה כתחילה בארבעה עשר, אף על פי שהוא יכול לגומרה. וחכמים אומרין, שלוש אומנייות עושין מלאכה בערבי פסחים, עד חצות--החייטים, והספרים, והכובסין; רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר, אף הרצענין.Thus, both professional launderers and barbers were open on erev Pesach.
Why? Because כל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים, הרי זה משובח. :)
People nowadays do not seek to get their hair, on the top of their head, cut on chol hamoed. The only question is shaving. And shaving nowadays is typically self-administered and done quickly, without any particular skill of precision. It is a maaseh hedyot rather than maaseh uman.
And it is something you need to do daily to look kempt. It is akin to showering or combing your hair. Had electric shavers existed in the time of Chazal and people used them as part of their daily grooming, it stands to reason that Chazal would not have gone out of their way to include it in their decree.
That is, it was not part of the initial decree and further, given the reason behind the ban of giluach, they would not have wanted to include it.
[I am saying something different than the Rav here. As I understand it, he would say that shaving was part of the original gezeira but that since societal norms and what is being done have changed. to the extent that shaving before the moed and refraining from shaving during the moed accomplishes the very opposite of Chazal's intent, the gezeira does not apply. And that this is different from the typical simple case of batla taam, where it appears to be a machlokes whether the decree falls automatically, because there it is just neutral, rather than counter to their very purpose.]
Someone also pointed out the following. The Mishna lists laundering and hair-cutting together. The Rambam in Mishneh Torah, hilchot Shevitat Yom Tov, 7:21 writes:
Since linen clothing, etc., needs constant washing, even if they were washed from erev Yom Tov, it is permitted to wash them during chol hamoed. Rav Kapach writes on this:כא הַזָּבִים וְהַזָּבוֹת וְהַנִּדּוֹת וְהַיּוֹלְדוֹת וְכָל הָעוֹלִים מִטֻּמְאָה לְטַהְרָה בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין לְכַבַּס. וּמִי שְׁאֵין לוֹ אֵלָא חֲלוּק אֶחָד, הֲרֵי זֶה מְכַבְּסוֹ. מִטְפְּחוֹת הַיָּדַיִם וּמִטְפְּחוֹת הַסְּפָרִים וּמִטְפְּחוֹת הַסִּפּוּג, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין לְכַבַּס; וְכֵן כְּלֵי פִּשְׁתָּן, מֻתָּר לְכַבְּסָן בַּמּוֹעֵד, מִפְּנֵי שְׁהֶן צְרִיכִים כִּבּוּס תָּמִיד, אַפִלּוּ נִתְכַּבְּסוּ עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב.
: ומינה לאותם הנוהגים להתגלח בכל יום, לדעת רבנו אין איסור להתגלח במועד"I could imagine a rejoinder that that sort of clothing existed in the time of Chazal and were therefore obviously not included as part of the injunction, while shaving as practiced today was not envisioned by Chazal, such that they would not think to exclude it. And I can imagine a rejoinder to that, in turn.
Monday, March 25, 2013
I've tried both and it's not the same
Mi Yodeya (AKA judaism.stackExchange.com) just released a haggadah, based on questions and answers on their site:
Here is a question I answered this morning on their site:
My answer:
DOWNLOAD the PDF here:
Here is a question I answered this morning on their site:
Can sefardim eat lafa before Pesach?
There is a custom(?) to abstain from eating matza 30 days before Passover so that the taste will be new. There are some sects of sefardic or teimani Jews who eat a type of matzah that is more akin to the lafa bread used to wrap shwarma or falafel. Do those who eat this kind of matzah similarly abstain from eating breads like pita or lafa 30 days before Pesach so that the taste is new to them?
My answer:
The basis of the prohibition of eating matzah on erev Pesach (which was later expanded to longer periods before Pesach) may be found in Yerushalmi Pesachim 68b:אמר רבי לוי האוכל מצה בערב הפסח כבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו והבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו לוקה'Rabbi Levi said: One who eats matzah on erev Pesach is like one who has intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law's house. And one who has intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law's house is lashed.'The idea appears to be that one is spoiling one's taste for matzah by having it just before the appropriate time.People attribute the following quip to Achad HaAm, but I've heard that it was really Bialik; I've also seen it attributed to Smolenskin:ניסיתי את שניהם ולא מצאתי דומים"I've tried both and did not find them to be similar."Nowadays we have chametzdik matzah available year-round. I would guess that the minhag does / should encompass such chametzdik matzah, since it would spoil one's taste. But a flat chametzdik cracker would not fall under this custom.In terms of laffa and soft matzah, I can echo the quip: I've tried both and they are not the same. Laffa tastes good. Soft matzah does not. It is just awful. No one would confuse the two.(It is perhaps slightly better if you take it right out of the oven just then.) Our crisp matzah is 100 times better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
