Thanksgiving in Halacha

Thanksgiving is here and that means time for a special HalachaBoy edition. While as Jews we are quite proficient in offering thanks (we do it a minimum of three times a day), are we allowed to celebrate this secular holiday named Thanksgiving? Rav Doniel Rapp, Rav in YU and one of the top three funniest Rabbis alive, [ I have to put Rav Dovid Orlofsky and Rav Neil Fleischman up there also) provided this insight into the matter: [ You can listen to the shiur here http://yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/706550/Rabbi_Dani_Rapp/Is_Thanksgiving_Kosher-_The_Halachic_Debate ] The source for the problem of Thanksgiving is the prohibition of Bechukosehem Lo Telechu – in the Goyim’s ways we should not follow.Now clearly we are allowed to breathe and have two eyes like the Goyim so what exactly is prohibited? The gemara in Sanhedrim brings down there used to be a minhag that when Jewish kings would die they would burn all the kings possessions. However, the gemara asks shouldn’t that be a violation of Bechukosehem as the goyim do that also? And the gemara answers that since we did it first it’s ok. Interestingly the gemara in Avodah Zara asks same question but offers a different answer. That answer is that the prohibition of Bechokosehem only applies to senseless things (chukim) the goyim do, however the burning of the kings possessions was to show honor for the kings and thus even though the goyim do it, we can do it also. Tosfos in Avodah Zara asks the obvious question of why the Gemara offers two answers for one question, and answers that both apply. If the activity is for avodah zarah or immorality then we can’t do. If it is senseless, we can only do if we did it first. Thus, according to Tosfos wearing neck ties (which clearly serve no functional purpose) would be forbidden. In fact, the Vilna Gaon subscribed to this understanding. The Rama, quoting the Ran and Maharik, argues and says that only activities that encourage immodest or avodah zara behavior are forbidden. Further, any activity that you don’t know for sure the source you need to worry it has immoral connotations and thus forbidden. However, any activity that has a productive purpose, even if the goyim did it first, we can do. So doctors can wear white coats (as that labels them as MD’s and not janitors). Who do we follow? Well, simply look down and see if you’re wearing a tie. Most people now-a-days follow the Rama (Chassidim are the notable exception, which is ironic because that means they paskin like the Gra) and thus any activity that has a productive purpose, even if the goyim did it first, we can do. What about Thanksgiving? Well as Thanksgiving was enacted by President Abraham Lincoln after the civil war to create camaraderie and not for avodah zara or immorality it would seem that according to the Rama it would be no problem. Rav Moshe Feinstein in a number of responsa (spanning the years 1953-1991) discussed this issue and concluded that he thinks thanksgiving is just a regular secular holiday, and no different than labor day. Eating turkey on Thanksgiving should be allowed according to the Rama, provided you enjoy eating turkey, and are not just eating it because of Thanksgiving. In terms of turkeys being kosher for all year see a wonderful written article by Halachaboy in ParshaMan Parshas Shemini 2008 or just click here: http://parshaman.blogspot.com/2008/03/momma-shes-being-meanie-take-away-her.html

Chaya Sara: Salt on the Challah

As Halachaboy my goal is to provide halachos you might not be aware of, and to hopefully get your mind working to start thinking up these questions by yourself. So, let me ask you a question: Why do we put salt on our Challah on Shabbas? If you are like most people you probably remember learning that now-a-days since we don't have a Bais HaMikdash nor a Mizbeach, our household tables are considered miniature Mizbeachs. And just as every Karbon required an application of salt, so too we add salt to our Challah. This idea is based on the Medrash quoted by ParshaMan last week. The Medrash writes that the world is made up of three parts: one part desert, one part settled land, and one part sea. The sea said to G-d: "Master of the Universe! The Torah will be given in the desert; the Holy Temple will be built on settled land; and what about me?" Said G-d: "The people of Israel will offer your salt upon the Altar." But let me ask you two questions I have on this: 1. If this is true, why don't we put salt on every food item? If our tables our a Mizbeach, why is only Challah considered a Karbon and not every other food we eat? 2. Further, this idea can't be true because on Rosh Hashanah and for some of us through Sukkos instead of salt we put honey on our Challah and the pasuk in Vayikra (my bar mitzva parsha) clearly forbids the pouring of honey on the Mizbeach. Thus, I would like to offer two other reasons (one more practical, the other chassidish) as to why we add salt to our Challah on Shabbas: 1. Salt is used to give flavor. When making a bracha on something, one should try to make it on the best possible item. F or example, when you go to restaurant and you need to wash for your slice of pizza, you shouldn't make the Hamotzei on the soggy, stale bread waiting at the washing station. By waiting to make the bracha on your hot, yummy pizza it shows a respect for Hashem and the Bracha. So to when eating bread one should place salt on it first as a way of honoring the blessing, by making sure that the piece of bread you eat after saying the blessing is delicious. This follows the Torah idea that physical pleasure can be used as a vehicle in the service of Hashem. This, however, only applies if you would normally put salt on your bread to flavor it. 2. A second answer given is based on last week's parsha and the story of Lot and his wife. Why was it that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Perhaps, we can say that salt is not a necessity, it only enhances the food already there. While both Lot and his wife were committed to helping the needy and Hachnasos Orchim, they disagreed in how to perform such Chessed. Lot felt that guests should be treated as well as one's own family member, while his wife felt it was enough to sustain them and providing them the luxuries of life weren't required. Due to her stinginess, Lot's wife turned into salt. To rectify this bad trait, we go out of our way on Shabbas and Yuntif, when guests are present, to show our guests that not o nly are we going to provide them with their basic needs, but we are also going to go above and beyond and provide them with the tasty delicacies of life. This is the message we send by salting the Challah.

Parshas Vayera: Dabru Davar and Reading a Newspaper on Shabbas

Dear HalachaBoy, Can I read a newspaper on Shabbas? Every newspaper is filled with advertisements and business articles, and it is practically impossible to go through a paper without letting one of these catch your eyes. [Editor's note: A newspaper, itself, on Shabbas might be muktza for other reasons and thus prohibited to read or even move, but this article assumes those issues aren't present] We know that not only are there 39 Melachos on Shabbas, but there is also the concept of things not being "shabbish-dick." This idea is learnt from Yeshaya HaNavi and included in it is the prohibition of talking about items that you would only talk about during the week (i.e. driving a car, dealing in business). This prohibition is known as Dabru Davar. There is machlokes in the Rishonim as to why this prohibition exists. According to some Rishonim, talking about your weekly business is a violation of Kavod Shabbas. However, other Rishonim learn that the Rabbis prohibited talking about business because talking about a prohibited melacha will lead to violating the actual melacha. The Rambam brings down this Halacha, that it is forbidden to talk about business and weekly matters, however he mentions that only talking is forbidden yet thinking about such items are permissible. Rav Yaakov Emden, discusses this question of reading a newspaper on Shabbas and permits it because it is for pleasure, however if it is for business (the Wall St Journal or an ad) it is assur. Further, the Mishna Brura brings down that is assur to read the business section of the newspaper on Shabbas. But why is it assur? Isn't reading just thinking and the Rambam already told us only talking is prohibited but thinking is permitted? Rav Yisroel Reisman wanted to answer this based on the two understands we mentioned earlier. If the reason talking about weekly matters is prohibited is due to its lack of Kavod Shabbas, so too reading something on Shabbas shows a lack of Kavod Shabbas. And if you learn the other way, you are forced to say that reading is more parallel with talking than thinking and thus forbidden. When thinking, no one has any indication of what is going through your mind. However, when reading, not only can other people see what you are doing, but reading is actually a mode of communication just like talking. Thus, even if you learn that talking about business is prohibited because it will lead to violating the actual melacha, the same could be said for reading. For just as one is influenced by others through words of speech, so too is one influence from words of the pen. To conclude, reading a paper for enjoyment is allowed, however to read the business section and advertisements is a violation of Dabru Davar and thus should be avoided. Harav Nissan Karelitz writes on this subject: "While a ben Torah and his family should avoid reading a newspaper on Shabbos altogether, we do not object to those who are lenient and read the permissible parts of the newspaper. This is especially true with regard to women, children and those who do not engage in the study of Torah [who require a kosher alternative so that they will not come to engage in idle or forbidden talk or worse]; we definitely should not object to their reading the permissible parts of the newspaper."

Parshas Lech Lecha: Secular Marriages in Halacha

As HalachaBoy it is my goal to see the world through the prism of Halacha and when I saw this short article (from http://www.vosizneias.com/), I was so impressed I had to insert it in my weekly spot. I apologize to those that saw this article already and to those that were expecting an HalachaBoyOriginal, but if you really want something new- please email me at thehalachaboy@gmail.com and ill cook something up (Parshaman doesn't allow me two spots in a week--he's under a tight budget) New York City- Most people associate Tory Burch with $500 boots and the resurgence of 1960s fashion design. In four short years she has managed to build a veritable fashion design empire that has taken over the minds of teenage girls and married women... as well as the bank accounts of their fathers and husbands (or what's left of their bank accounts in light of the current economic downturn). Few, however, would identify her as a typical example of one of the tens of thousands of people that are the subject of a great halachic debate between Rav Yoseph Eliyahu Henkin, zt'l, (1881–1973) and Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt'l (1895–1986). What lies at the heart of this great debate are the following questions: How does the halachah view a secular (non-religious) Jewish marriage? And what happens if such a marriage dissolves? When a Jewish couple that was married either in the secular court system or by a non-Orthodox rabbi is divorced, rarely do they seek to also obtain a Jewish bill of divorce, called a get. This could present a problem for the woman's future marriage prospects and, unfortunately, for those of her children as well.Although Tory Burch (daughter of Reva Robinson and thus halachically Jewish) apparently received the last name she is now using from her marriage to Chris Burch (not a Jew), she was previously married to William Macklowe, a famous real-estate developer who is also halachically Jewish. The marriage did not succeed, and it ended rather quickly in a secular divorce. The question is, though: What is the halachic status of this first marriage? Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses this issue in Igros Moshe (Even HaEzer, vol. IV, No. 59; he discusses the issue in general, not Ms. Burch's particular circumstances). In discussing these types of marriages in a letter to Rabbi Nissan Alpert, zt'l, Rav Moshe is of the opinion that since the original wedding was, in all probability, never made with any halachic validity, the need for a halachic get is not imperative. A halachic wedding requires a woman to receive an item of value accompanied by the Jewish declaration of marriage in the presence of two Sabbath-observing witnesses. If there were no Sabbath-observing witnesses present when the ring was given and the declaration made, there is no halachic wedding, states Rav Moshe. Rav Henkin, on the other hand, disagrees. He quotes a principle of the Talmud (Gittin 81b and codified in Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1) that a person does not generally wish that his marriage not be legitimate. The Mishnah there in Gittin explains that, according to Beis Hillel, if a man divorces his wife but subsequently remains with her in a pundaki (an inn), a get is required. The Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 149:1) rules in accordance with Beis Hillel. Rav Henkin extends this ruling to cases such as the one mentioned above, as well. He points out that, although no longer practiced, there are ways of enacting a halachic marriage other than with the use of a ring (see the first Mishnah in tractate Kiddushin), and this is what is at play both in our case and in the Mishnah in Gittin. Since the members of this married couple are living together as a married couple, and the world views them as such, we have all the elements of a halachic marriage. What are the elements? The three elements are (1) kosher witnesses; (2) a valid method of effectuating marriage; and (3) the declaration of marriage. In Rav Henkin's view, who are the "kosher witnesses"? The witnesses are the entire world, including Sabbath-observing neighbors and friends that see them acting as a married couple. Rav Henkin refers to another Talmudic principle called an "anan sahadi," which literally means "we [all] testify." In his view, witnesses do not actually have to see it, but knowing it with certitude is sufficient. Where is the declaration of marriage? According to Rav Henkin, there is a tacit, unspoken declaration of marriage that is based on the fact that a person does not wish his marriage to be invalid. Thus, when there is another method of effectuating the marriage—living together as husband and wife—Rav Henkin rules that the tacit declaration is the accompanying secondary marriage effectuation. Although it may sound somewhat strange, Rav Henkin's position is not so novel. Poskim have discussed the notion of savlanos, sending gifts to one's new bride, as a problem, and the issue is extended beyond the case of the Mishnah in Gittin.How have the poskim viewed this great halachic debate? Rav Moshe Feinstein himself writes that ideally one should require a get in order to satisfy the other view as well. Rav Ovadiah Yosef also requires a get under ideal circumstances. However, the challenges of arranging for a get when the husband is truly not around allows for leniencies, according to both Rabbi Feinstein and Rav Yosef.Does it really matter for Tory Burch? Would it make a difference for her? Perhaps yes. It seems that she has been dating Jewish men since her divorce. She has dated both an Israeli designer and an American Jewish businessman. So the next time you spend $500 bucks on a pair of boots, make sure it comes with a Get.

Parshas Noach: Abortion

In honor of the upcoming presidential election this week I would like to discuss a hot topic that has been debated at great detail by the candidates (I haven't watched or heard any of the debates but I assume it's a hot topic because it always is): a⋅bor⋅tion   / Pronunciation [uh-bawr-shuh n] –noun 1.Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy What is the Torah's view on abortion? But before we get to that, what is the typical Jewish college student's view on abortion?COLLEGE-AGE JEWS FOUND SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PRO-ABORTION THAN NON-JEWSWASHINGTON, August 2, 2002 (LSN.ca) - In a major survey with stark implications for conservative Jewish leaders, researchers have found that Jewish college students are generally much more pro-abortion than their non-Jewish counterparts. Data from freshmen at 424 U.S. colleges in 1999 was analyzed by researchers at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). The study by Linda J. Sax of UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute compared responses from 8,000 Jewish students and 232,000 non-Jewish students finding that 89.3% of Jewish students agreed that "abortion should be legal" compared to 52.3% of non-Jews. When I first read this I was shocked and appalled by how far some of our brothers and sisters have fallen. However, after some thinking I realized that this is perfectly logical. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (47a) tells us that a non-jew who kills a fetus is punished by death. However, a jew that kills a fetus, while a very deplorable and heinous crime, is not sentenced to death. Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that aborting a fetus is considered murder, however, capital punishment is not meted out against the aborted. Rav Matissyahu Blum, in his Sefer Torah La'daas, discusses this issue and rules that the sin for killing the fetus goes to the doctor, while the pregnant mother violates Lifnei Ever. He further quotes that in order to be sentenced to death the fetus must be forty days old. What if the mother is in danger? If the mother is Jewish then we save her over her child, for aborting the fetus is not as serious a crime as killing the mother. However, if we just said that aborting a non-jewish fetus is punished by death (as is the case if you kill a non-jew), who takes priority? The Minchas Chinuch asks this question and seems to conclude that in such a case it is prohibited for a non-jewish doctor to abort the fetus. However the Sefer Koach Shor rules that we view the fetus as a Rodef, a pursuer wanton on killing its mother. Thus while normally killing a non-jewish fetus is punishable by death, if the fetus is a Rodef, a different set of rules apply and we say that anyone, even a non-jew, is allowed to kill it.Thus to conclude, as a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. And while aborting a fetus is a very horrible crime, it is not a capital crime. So while it is very sad that some yidden are so far away from yiddishkeit, it comforting to know they are still learning Gemara.

Parshas Breishis: Gashem or Geshem

It's a bigger fight than Ali-Frazer, has more ramifications than USA-Russia, and is even larger than the current US election. It rears it ugly head at this point int the year. Any guesses what it is?It is the age old fight between Geshem and Gashem. This past Wednesday we started saying Mashiv HaRuach in the Shemona Eshrei, and even Artscroll writes that some people say Morid HaGeshem (with a segol ) while others say Morid HaGashem (with a Kamatz ). Segol sounds like an "eh" and looks like this . . . Kamatz sounds like "ah" and looks like this T So which one is correct? Rav Geneck, of the OU and Rosh Yeshiva of YU, qoutes in his Sefer from Rav Soloveichick that this argument is really an argument in two Gemaras. The Bavli Gemara in Berachos says that if one forgot Mashiv Haruach, he cannot make it up in Shema Koleinu and thus if he finished the Bracha of where Mashiv Haruach should be (Mchayei Mesim) he must repeat Shemona Esrei. However, the Yerusalmi Berachos says that just as one can insert V'Ten Tal in Shema Kolenu if he forgot it in its right place (Barech Alenu) so too he can make up Mashiv Haruach if he forgot it in its proper place. Rav Soloveichick wanted to learn this argument was based on the following: When one adds Mashiv Haruach to the Bracha of Mchayei Mesim, do we view those added words as an integral component of the Bracha ( Etzem Habracha), or are they just an addition but do not affect the actual text of the Bracha (Hazkara B'toch HaBracha). According to the Bavli, Mashiv Haruach is an integral component of the Bracha and thus if you forgot to say it in Mchayei Masim it is as if you forgot to say any other part of the Bracha. And just as if you forget to say Hashem's name, for example, you must repeat the Bracha so too here if you forget Mashiv Haruach you must go back. However, the Yerusalmi learns that it is just an addition, having no affect on the core Bracha. Since by forgetting Mashiv Haruach you haven't messed up the core Bracha, it is enough to insert in Shema Koleinu. Based on this Rav Geneck ruled that since we follow the opinion that if you forgot Mashiv Haruach in Mechaya Mesim you must go back to the beginning (like the Bavli) we also rule that Mashiv Haruach is not an addition, but an integral part of the Bracha. Since it is an integral part of the Bracha one should pronounce Geshem with the Segel, which is used to show continution, and not a Kamatz (Gashem) which is used to show the end of an idea. However, based on this I don't know why anyone says Gashem, with a Kamatz. I would love to know if anyone knows. ( thehalachaboy@gmail.com )