Recently in Halakha Category

Since I moved down to the Lower East Side I have received more questions on Eiruvin than anything else. From conversations with many Jewish residents in the area - both members and non-members of my congregation - there is a great deal of interest and desire to have an eiruv erected on the Lower East Side. Setting aside the economic and political obstacles of putting up and eiruv down here, I decided that the best thing to do is simply to teach the basics of eiruvin in terms of how they work in halakha.

The intent of these shiurim is not to get people to the level of pesak and as such we did not explore the vast teshuva literature on the subject. Rather the goal was to provide working definitions and explain the laws and principles underlying the various halakhic disputes. Most sources are from the Talmud, Rambam, and Shulhan Aruch.

I decided to split this shiur into three parts:

1. Part 1 introduces the reshuyot and the basic definitions of eiruvin, and demonstrates that halakha views eiruvin positively and that putting one up is considered to be a Good Thing.
2. Part 2 covers the physical construction of the eiruv - the lehi, korah, and mostly the tzurat hapetach, explaining their halakhic function.
3. Part 3 discusses the conceptual requirement of getting all residents in an area to join an eiruv, as well as several solutions to the problem of getting Jews to agree on anything.

All three shiurim have been added to YUTOPIA's Source Sheet Archive.

As always, comments and corrections/suggestions are welcome!

A few weeks ago I received the relieving news that my master's thesis from the University of Chicago finally passed after several years and several attempts. The approved version was actually a draft and needed some degree of editing for typos, grammar, and a few structural changes. After mulling it over for a while and getting some positive feedback I've decided to post the thesis here with a few explanations.

Last Sunday was the Jewish fast day of Shiva Assar B'Tammuz - the 17th day of the month of Tammuz. In addition to being a fast day, the 17th of Tammuz also marks the beginning of The Three Weeks of mourning leading up to the fast of Tish'a B'av. For these three weeks and the final nine days Jews generally accept some practices of mourning. However, there is much confusion as to what actions are prohibited when.¹ Every year around this time I get a slew of questions as to what is permitted and prohibited during the three weeks and nine days and for some reason I never got around to posting my responses. To correct this oversight, here is my understanding of the laws and customs of the three weeks and nine days.

Update: Readers of this post may also be interested in my master's thesis

When I made my preliminary comments on the Conservative movement's recent decisions regarding homosexuality, the best source available at the time were press releases and either superficial or inaccurate coverage in the mainstream media. Fortunately, Steven I. Weiss has graciously posted the text of the actual teshuva. At 55 pages including footnotes, it is not exactly a light read but it is an important read nonetheless, given the serious nature of the topic discussed, and when others comment without having read the actual text. If you are new to this site, you may find my post "Lonely Men of Faith" a helpful context. This post will focus specifically on the Conservative teshuva itself.

Advisory: Normally YUTOPIA is a family blog, but given the topic of the post, some readers may feel uncomfortable with this discussion.

One quick halakha before my ride to the airport gets here. This one come from Shulhan Aruch O.C. 461:5:

אם אפו חמץ עם מצה, לא נאסרה אא"כ נגעה בחמץ ונוטל ממקום שנגעה כדי נטילת מקום, והשאר מותר

Rough translation: Matzah baked with hametz is only problematic (i.e. considered hametz itself and thus prohibited on Pesach) if they touched, in which case, cut off from the matzah at the point of contact and the rest is fine. Lest you think this is some Sephardi leniency, here's the Ramo:

מצה שנתכפלה בתנור ודבוקה עד יא שאין שולט שם האש, אוסרים אותה תוך הפסח אבל שאר מצות שבתנור מותרים וקודם פסח אין לאסור רק מקום דבוקה

And just to be sure, the Mishnah Berurah:

כדי נטילת מקום - היינו כעובי רוחב אצבע אגודל בינוני ויש מאחרונים שמחמירין בנעשה תוך הפסח לאסור כולו ולפי מש"כ הגר"א בסקי"ז יש להקל גם בזה

If you'd like to make sense of all this, I recommend looking over the entire siman as well as the Bet Yosef or you could hock your local Rabbi.

Hag Kasher V'Sameach!

As some of you may know I'm going to be in Israel for Pesach. It's my first vacation in just about ever, since for several years I have either had the time or money to travel, but not both. So I figure since I might not have the time or access to post over Pesach, I can address something for which I have recently been getting a lot of flack.

Despite my staying in Israel for roughly two weeks, I will be keeping one day of Yom Tov this Pesach.

Thanks to a mistake in one of my brackets this year¹ I had the following she'eilah:

Question: Are you allowed to have North Carolina winning a Texas vs. UConn final?²

The answer I believe depends on how your bracket is scored. Most brackets are weighted such that victories in the second round are worth more "points" than the first round games, third round more than second, and so forth. The reason behind this system is obvious - the odds of a given team winning in the third round are significantly decreased when you consider that that team may not make it out of the second round. There are far too many variables and possibilities such that correctly picking the tournament champion ought to be worth more than correctly picking the 1-16 game.

Since weighted brackets are predicated on the logic of a formalized tournament, you cannot count a victory which would be impossible in the actual tournament. If you have a team eliminated in the sweet sixteen, that team cannot be counted in your final four. This error could be grounds for disqualification, but I'd be content to treat the errant pick as a loss even if that team does in fact advance in the appropriate round of the tournament itself.

However, in the unlikely event you're involved in a pool which only scores the total number of wins - possible for a secondary prize - then the placement of these victories is no longer dependent on the actual tournament. As such, logic may be safely ignored and you're free to pick whomever at any given stage even if you have that team losing in the first round.

UPDATE: Apparently, it's not just me as even the famed sports guy made a similar mistake.

1. In a non-gambling pool, so no cracks about me being pasul l'eidut. Not for this anyway.
2. By "winning" I mean the actual game, not in some after-the-fact economic or recruiting benefits or the hana'ah (benefit) of mocking Duke for losing earlier in the tournament.

With Purim nearly upon us, it's time once again for the reading of the four special parshiyot. We're actually in the middle, having already covered sheqalim last week, but this week we get the spectacular fun of zachor (Devarim 25:17-19). Invariably, this reading generates much discussion as to how this passage should be read (including the practice of repeaing the last verse - a discussion for another time), and the extreme importance of being in shul to hear zachor being read.

Most of these discussions are based on the preception that the reading of parashat zachor is biblically mandated. This assumption has bothered me for some time, as well as the cavalier attitude with which it is presented. Despite the lack of textual evidence or logical consistency, few people question the nature of keriat parashat zachor. As luck would have it, my new upgraded Bar Ilan CD just came in and it's all all revved up for a test spin.

After years of horrible dating experiences, you finally find The One. She's (or he's) pretty, funny, smart, a dynamo in the kitchen, and even with your impossibly high standards, she's (you get the idea) everything you're ever been looking for in a spouse.

Well ... almost.

As it turns out she doesn't want to make aliyah. Or vice versa, she does and you really don't. For some reason, this little detail got overlooked by both of you and/or the shadchan never bothered checking. While there are many factors one considers in dating, aliyah is unique. There are significant halakhic, hashkafic, and practical considerations, and there is little room for compromise. You're not choosing between city and suburban life, but living in Israel or not living in Israel.

At any rate, you've now got a choice to make. Do you marry the girl of your dreams and give up aliyah, or go ahead with your life and take a chance with the dating game for however long it might take?

Naturally, there's not going to be a definitive answer to the question. But for those who are facing this dilemma, perhaps we can help sort through some of the factors to consider.

Before I get to the shticks this year, I want to write about the dangerous practice of drinking on Purim. Each year, some people overdo it and wind up sick, hospitalized, or worse. The problems are exacerbated by Rabbis who encourage and sometimes force students to drink regardless if the students have the alcohol tolerance or are of the legal drinking age.

On the other hand, the Talmud seemingly requires excessive drinking; in which case, even 13 year olds would be obligated. Lets begin with the relevant passage from Megillah 7b:

This is loosely translated as "Rava said: a man is obligated to get drunk on Purim until he does not know the difference between "cursed Haman" and "blessed Mordechai." This of course, requires an immense degree of intoxication. Some major halakhic works simply cite this dictum without qualification.(Rif 3b, Shulhan Aruch Orach Hayim 795:2) Consequently many take this statement at face value, and therefore drink and encourage others to get inebriated, under the assumption that they are fulfilling a rabbinic commandment.

I've found several sources on the web which deal with this issue in one way or another, but I've found most of them to be lacking in real analysis. What I will show here is that while this statement might be obligatory, it does not require the degree of drinking which is commonly practiced.

(For readability, I will be sacrificing some precision in translations).