TJ

“That is why we fast asara bteves even on shabbos…”

There is actually a machlokes rishonim about this case, though our calendar is arranged so it never happens.

Disclaimer: The following is for educational purposes only. It is not meant as medical advise. Ask your doctor for any practical advise regarding treatment of any medical or dental condition.

Dentists will usually offer a prescription of Vicodin or something if you want it, but it isn’t really necessary to take something like that. Take a double dose of Ibuprofin (Advil). It will help the pain, swelling, and temperature with no side effects (for normal people not on certain medications and without certain health problems). It will make everything tolerable. You may need to be on antibiotics, as well – ask your dentist. Be careful to avoid sucking or anything that causes suction in your mouth. That could cause the clots on your lower jaw to pop out, thereby exposing your bone to infection (dry socket). If you were to end up with dry socket, the pain would get much worse.

“this is getting dangerously close to ‘morah torah.'”

Well, we learn to avoid that from what the malach told eishes Manoach: “… u’morah lo ya’aleh al rosho.” (Shoftim, 13:5)

(1.) Regarding sakanas nefashos: driving, unlike firecrackers, is something that dosh bei rabbim.

(2.) There is a high risk of non-lethal injury, which brings up the issurim of chovel bachaveiro and bal tashchis d’gufo.

(3.) Pikuach nefesh and external damage aren’t the only factors here. Firecrackers cause hearing damage that can become permanent depending on the level of exposure. (Often people don’t even realize that their hearing is damaged until they take a hearing test. Or they might notice that they need to turn up the volume on the shiurim they listen to, or that they are more frequently asking people to speak up). In the unlikely scenario that the only person whose hearing is affected is the person making the noise, it is still assur because of bal tashchis d’gufo.

“I’m not here to judge anyone’s level of Torah scholarship”

I know – neither was I. I was just joking around. Perhaps you missed where the Editor wrote:

“I don’t know who Jothar is, but these gedolim are not blogging on YWN. And don’t start with the “they are on a higher madreiga” nonsense. They know the mishna berurah better than you ever will in your life. Period.”

Anyway, I was spoofing that. Sometimes, in the spirit of v’nahafoch hu, when reuvein knocks shimon down a peg, it is nice to remind reuvein of his own place. As Hillel said: “Al da’ateift, atfuch.” (To the velt: Please don’t take this as an invitation to start ragging on me, too.)

There are also the problems of chovel bachaveiro and bal tashchis d’gufo as a result of the potentially permanent damage inflicted on people’s hearing.

Joseph wrote: “TJ, Actually you are incorrect regarding Reb Yaakov paskening it permissable to shake hands to avoid embarasement. In the mekor provided, Reb Yaakov states “Regarding returning a handshake to women when they extend their hand first in greeting, not in an affectionate manner, this is a very serious question and it is difficult to be lenient.” Reb Yaakov goes on to state that in a situation where there will cause embarasement, it requires further study whether it is permissable to be lenient or not.”

I never said that R’ Ya’akov “pasken[ed] it permissable to shake hands to avoid embarasement.” I refer you to what I wrote above: “[Where] return[ing] a handshake won’t cause embarrassment… R’ Ya’akov [was] inclined to assur returning the handshake.” I also wrote: “R’ Ya’akov wrote “tzarich iyun” in such a case where returning a handshake would be necessary to avoid embarrassing someone.” You are arguing against a phantom here.

Joseph wrote: “Reb Moshe, multiple times in the Igros Moshe, is very clear that it is assur.”

Again, I never disagreed with that. (However, as I mentioned before, he was lomeid zechus on those who hold that it is muttar.) At the risk of repeating myself, I was simply reporting what R’ Reuvein said about R’ Moshe giving a different p’sak when the person would be embarrassed. This p’sak wasn’t in Igros Moshe.

Joseph wrote: “TJ, If someone asked you to call them on Shabbos, and you telling them sorry I can’t do that would embarrass them for asking, would you be mechalel shabbos to prevent their embarrassment?”

I don’t know exactly how embarrassment factors into p’sak regarding handshaking, but I can offer some conjecture. (1.) According the preponderance of poskim, there is no inherent issur involved in physical contact with a woman – it is dependent on the type of contact and whether it is “derech chiba v’ta’avah.” In a case where the person would be embarrassed if you don’t shake their hand, that concern itself may affect the halachic nature of the handshake given that the circumstances are such that you are only handshaking to avoid the other person being humiliated. As such, such a handshake might not be considered “derech chiba.” (2.) The Taz and the Shach have a fairly meikel view of physical contact. The Shach, for example writes that physical contact is only assur if it is “derech ta’avah v’chibas bi’ah.” It seems like these opinions would mattir handshaking. Perhaps the threat of humiliation justifies following a more lenient opinion. (3.) The Yerushalmi’s consideration of “ain yetzer hara matzui l’sha’ah” is an additional factor that might be relied upon when there is a threat of embarrassing someone. (4.) A non-sakana type of mishoom eivah can override a d’rabanan. In the case of a goyah, she an ervah mid’rabbanan, and therefore lo sikrevu would only be d’rabbanan even l’fi HaRambam. As a result, avoiding embarrassing a goyah might be an additional factor to justify handshaking.

You can’t violate lavim, but perhaps you can be someich on mitigating factors. Even R’ Ya’akov, who didn’t pasken either way in this case, thought that there MIGHT be a tzad l’hakeil. It is clearly not so poshut.

Joseph wrote: “Lo Sikrevu – the Torah prohibition of touching – is referring even to non-affectionate touching, according to the Rambam. The Ramban argues, and holds that non-affectionate touching is not included in the possuk, but is assur nonetheless m’drabbanan.”

It is not poshut bichlal to say that the Rambam was referring to “non-affectionate touching.” The poshut understanding of the Rambam is not like that, though the Beis Yosef did understand the Rambam like you, but the Shach disagrees completely (Yoreh De’ah 157:10). R’ Moshe in his teshuva paskened like the Shach. Also, I don’t think that the Ramban mentioned “non-affectionate touching,” either. Perhaps you got that confused with the Teshuvos HaRashba.

Joseph wrote: “TJ, I don’t believe Reb Yaakov ever said any such thing regarding a heter for embarrassment. Do you have a mekor for that? I think not.”

Actually, I do. Emes L’Ya’akov on the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, p.405 n. 4.

Joseph wrote: “Reb Moshe wrote befeirush in the quoted IM that shaking hands is always assur under all circumstances. Period.”

True that R’ Moshe asured handshaking, though he was lomeid zechus for those who hold that it isn’t derech chiba. I just wrote what R’ Reuven reported about his father’s shita, in a case where there is the additional issue of embarrassment.

“TJ, I was completely kidding.”

I figured you were being facetious, but I couldn’t help myself.

Charlie brown: A baki without lomdus is not a baki, and a lamdan without bekiyus is not a lamdan. Notwithstanding, there is a tremendous amount of lomdus in Sotah.

Mod 42: According to Rabbi Meir (Sotah 3a), Moshe Rabbeinu was born mahul, so there’s no question according to that opinion.

While there are plenty of guys who try to get drunk for the mitzvah, there are also a lot of yeshiva bum ois vorfs who are just taking advantage of another opportunity to get drunk.

Let’s put it this way: Most people who get stone drunk on Simchas Torah or Purim night, and most people who get drunk on liquor on Purim, are probably not drinking on Purim b’ikkar for the mitzvah. One should be dan l’kaf zechus on an individual basis, but it is pretty obvious that there are plenty of idiots out there.

A lot of people have told me that for many years they have tried to get so drunk that they don’t know the difference between arur haman and baruch Mordechai, but that they have never been able to get that confused no matter how drunk they get.

Assuming that one takes the position that the mitzva is in fact to become so utterly stupefied, how is this not a davar she’ain rov hatzibur yachol la’amod bo?

Jothar wrote: “The teretz must be that vashti had 2 mothers. And in fact we see it says ‘Gam Vashti Hamalka asisa mishtei nashim'”

My brother independently came up with a similar joke several years back. In that girsa, it was a dig at Vashti’s weight.

Of course, the problem with this joke is the dikduk. “As’sa” means “she made” – “ne’es’sa” would be the right word for “she was made.”

Mayan: I don’t have my own opinion on what ad d’lo yada means. All I know is that most poskim have either rejected ad d’lo yada or understood it as meaning something other than complete stupor. I don’t know if it’s fair to say that the face value of ad d’lo yada is that you’re not yotzei till you’re drunk out of your mind. There are different opinions on what the poshut pshat is here. A number of rishonim understand the simple meaning of the statement as saying that ad d’lo yada is the limit at which a person should drink no more, rather than the goal that needs to be reached. The Rambam, as understood by some achronim, holds that there is no shiur for how much one should drink or for how drunk one should get. There is simply an obligation to engage in drinking. If a person happens to reach the point of ad d’lo yada, such as if they pass out or otherwise achieve the status of a shoteh, they are obviously no longer mechuyav b’mitzvos hayom. This fits quite well with the simple mashma’us of the gemara.

The predominant p’sak in practical terms is to simply drink yoseir milimudo.

The Beis Haleivi wrote that people should only get drunk if they are doing it lishma. Many recent poskim have stressed the fact that people should only get drunk if they know that won’t behave in a dangerous or assur manner. (That includes bentching or davening while drunk, which is assur). The purim seuda should be a tikkun for the seuda of Achashveirosh, not, chalilah, lehefech.

My RY holds of yoseir milimudo. Personally, I usually have a little more than one bottle of wine during the seuda. That’s more than the arba kosos I have on Pesach, which is the only other time I drink, so I think that I am yotzei “yoseir milimudo.” I can easily recite poems and calculate gematriyos afterward, so I suppose I’m not yotzei Tosfos or the Be’er Hagolah. :

“Vayavei es ohavav v’es Zeresh ishto.” “Vatomer lo Zeresh ishto v’chol ohavav….” “Vaysapeir Haman l’Zeresh ishto ul’chol ohavav eis kol asher karahu, vayom’ru lo chachamav v’Zeresh ishto….”

Some observations:

1.) The pesukim clearly distinguish between the wicked Haman’s loved ones and his wife.

2.) They also distinguish between his wise advisers and her. Apparently, the cursed Zeresh was neither loved nor wise. Still, she was always there giving her two cents.

3.) The wicked Haman sent for his friends before his wife. That shows who he preferred.

4.) He followed his wife’s advice, and that led to his demise. This is an example of what Rav said (Bava Metzia, 59a): “Kol haholeich ba’atzas ishto (b’milei d’alma), nofeil b’gehinnom.”

5.) For some reason, he consulted his wife first only after her proposal began to backfire.

6.) Though his wife spoke up first when originally telling him what to do, she spoke up last when telling him that he was doomed because of her advice.

7.) He didn’t listen to his wise men until it was too late (and even then he hadn’t asked for their opinion).

8.) Maybe if Haman harasha would have asked the wise men for their opinions in the first place, instead of asking his buddies and his wife, he would have gotten better advice. As the Gemara in Nedarim states (40a): “Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If youths advise you to build, and sages advise you to demolish, listen to the sages and don’t listen to the youths. For the construction of youths is really destructive, and the destruction advised by sages is really constructive.” In the wicked Haman’s case that is exactly what happened – he was destroyed by the gallows that he constructed on the advice of his friends.

By the way, the Orchos Chaim (quoted by the Beis Yosef) opposed drunkenness very strongly, as follows: “A person is obligated “livesumei” on Purim – not to get drunk. For drunkenness is an issur gamur, and there is no greater sin, for it can lead to gilui arayos and bloodshed and many other aveiros. Rather, a person should simply drink a bit more than he is accustomed to.” Several rishonim hold that this is the point of the continuation of the gemara “Kam rabba/rava (depending on the girsa) v’shachtei l’Rabbi Zeira.”

It seems like most poskim held that people should not get very drunk, and that they should just drink more than they usually do.

Moish: Rashi spells out that it is only a mitzvah to drink wine, not other alcoholic beverages. I am unaware of any rishonim that disagreed with Rashi.

P.S. The mitzvah livesumei only applies during the daytime.

P.P.S. People should be careful about how they time their seudas so that they can bentch and daven both mincha and ma’ariv without being drunk. For example, daven mincha at mincha gedola. Then start the seuda and drink. Drink moderately and stop drinking early enough that by the time you bentch and daven ma’ariv you are reasonably sober.

“The jovial character of this feast is illustrated in the saying of the Talmud (Megilla 7b) stating that one should drink on Purim until he can no longer distinguish between (ad delo yada) the phrases, arur Haman (“Cursed is Haman”) and baruch Mordechai (“Blessed is Mordecai”). In Hebrew these phrases have the same gematria (“numerical value”), and some authorities, including the Be’er Hagolah and the Magen Avraham, have ruled that one should drink wine until he too drunk to calculate these numerical values.

“This saying was codified by Rabbis Isaac Alfasi (the “Rif”), Asher ben Jehiel (the “Rosh”), Jacob ben Asher (the “Tur”), Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 695, and is interpreted simply (as explained above) by the Chatam Sofer. This interpretation of the Talmudic statement, or the acceptance of the statement itself, is disputed (for various reasons) by the Tosafists (based on the Jerusalem Talmud), Maimonides, Rabbeinu Ephraim, Ba’al HaMa’or, Nissim of Gerona (the “Ran”), Orchot Chaim, Be’er Hagolah, the Magen Avraham, Rabbis David HaLevi Segal (the “Taz”), Moses Isserles (the “Rema”), Vilna Gaon, the “Maharsha”, Rashash, Tzeidah LaDerech, Hagahot Maimoniyot, Ra’avyah, Korban N’tan’el, the Bach, the Maharil, P’ri M’gadim, Kol Bo, Chochmat Mano’ach, the Mishnah Berurah and others. These authorities all advocate drinking wine in some quantity, but all (except Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ra’avyah) discourage the level of drunkenness suggested by the Chatam Sofer. The Rema says that one should only drink a little more than he is used to drinking, and then try to fall asleep whereupon he certainly will not be able to tell the difference between the two phrases indicated by the Talmud. This position is shared by the Kol Bo and Mishnah Berurah, and is similar to that of Maimonides.”

— from Wikipedia

A suggestion:

This is a 530 dollar (500 dollars after rebate) Compaq. Looks like it is one of the better performing laptops in its price range. Decent screen resolution, processor (dual core), and RAM. Good hard drive size. 2 hour battery life. 3 USB ports and a memory card reader. Comes with Windows Vista.

However, it is a little on the big side – 6.6 lbs with a 15.6 inch screen. If your main concern is portability, you might want to sacrifice performance and quality for smaller size.

In general, Dell computers are a bit better than similarly priced Compaqs or HPs. What is your price range? Any other specifications that you want? Is refurbished okay with you?

There is no basis for wearing one head covering that has two layers. There are some sources that suggest that, while davening, it is not considered proper to simply wear one’s hat and discard his kippa – a person should also wear his kippa underneath. (The sixth lubavitcher rebber, in his igros, suggested attributing kabbalistic significance to this).

That is how the “two layered kippa” story started. It is a bubbamaysa that was concocted during the 20th century.

In general, the earliest source for specifically wearing a hat during davening (as opposed to a smaller head covering), is derived from the Rokeach. It is proper to have atifa during davening, such as by draping a tallis over one’s head. In 13th century Germany, people did not wear a tallis during mincha or ma’ariv. The Rokeach suggested that the people were at least accomplishing “miktzas atifa” (partial atifa) by wearing their hats during davening. This Rokeach was quoted by some later achronim, but was not specifically mentioned by a large number of poskim.

As the Mishnah B’rurah writes, wearing a hat during davening is primarily a means of “hikon” (proper decorum during davening). After all, as the Chofetz Chaim writes, if people wouldn’t even walk down the street without their hats, it is certainly disrespectful to daven without a hat.

The basic requirement of hikon is that someone present themselves at davening the same as if they were going to a meeting with a governor or president.

In communities where people walk down the street without a hat, and go to job interviews without a hat, and even meet the president without a hat, “hikon” doesn’t require a person to daven with a hat. In such a case, the only possible halachic basis for an ordinary Ben Torah to wear a hat would be the Rokeach. (Of course, if someone is davening in a shul where everyone wear hats, “lo sisgod’du” and “minhag hamakom” may also be factors.)

Ames: The source for replying “same to you” is the Gemara in Megillah (27b). Rav blessed his student Rav Huna, and the blessing came true. Rav then told Rav Huna that he should have responded to the bracha with “and the same to Mar (i.e. Rav).” According to Rashi, Rav told Rav Huna “You should have blessed me that I should also receive the same bracha, for perhaps it was an eis ratzon and the blessing would have been fulfilled for me as well.” The Aruch L’ner (Rav Ya’akov Ettlinger), in his hakdama to maseches Yevamos, quotes the following interpretation of Rashi that he heard from his father, Rav Aharon Ettlinger:

Chazal state that people don’t tend to be jealous of their children or their students, and Rav CERTAINLY wasn’t jealous of his student Rav Huna. Rather, out of his humility, Rav wished to convey the impression that the bracha only came true because it was given at a favorable time. This way, he intended to preclude attribution of the bracha’s fulfillment to his own zechus.