It’s unclear in the Shulchan Aruch there. He says it starts at the forehead, meaning the hair that juts out from on top of the peyos onto the forehead. My personal opinion is that you draw a slant from there until the front of the top of your ear, and everything lower than that until the bone is your peyos.

The shiur of the bone is where the peyos stop on the bottom. You can feel it next to the middle of your ear where the skull overlaps the jaw (ok there are fancier words but I don’t know them). Under that you do not need to worry about the rules of peyos. This is all in the Shulchan Aruch there.

See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 181. It’s not very complicated.

mommamia22 –

There are two opinions about what kind of removing peyos is forbidden. Either only a razor is assur or even a scissors which cuts close like a razor is assur (such as a kosher shaver). We are machmir like the second pshat. Anything which is not similar to a razor-cut is fine. Therefore I believe that a 2 is certainly fine, and even a 1. The only thing I would say is problematic is the clipper without an attachment, and even that might vary based on what it looks like after it’s done.

hello99 –

Yes, thank you for responding. Good points. My rav also holds l’halacha that the reason for ein mevatlin is because you may miscalculate. Though it would be interesting to calculate if on a normal sized piece of meat there will ever not be 60 against it, making it similar to ???? ?????? ????. But your other points preclude that anyway. Moreover, I was thinking that there is a bigger problem using 60 here, in that we are dealing with tzli.

On one thing I’m not sure though – you say that the sauce is separate from the steak; I was assuming that she wasn’t dousing it with that much that there would be any actual separate mamashus after the steak was finished done grilled, because that’s usually how it is when I grill. But if the metzius is like you, I readily agree.

lol popa

mommamia22 –

That’s debatable. Someone tried to make that claim before but I was under the impression that in this case the Gemara meant leprosy or something like that, something physical. As far as I know the Gemara never uses the term sakana in this context to denote a spiritual danger.

Health –

Hey, I have no objection.

My 58 year old great-grandfather married my 28 year old great-grandmother.

Sam2 –

I Googled underage drinking in New Jersey and a link came up with all of the laws that included the following sentence:

Exemptions: Any underage person or persons who possesses or consumes alcoholic beverages in connection with religious observance, ceremony or right or consumes or possesses an alcoholic beverage in the presence of and with the permission of the parent , guardian, or relative who has attained the legal age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

So “dina d’malchusa” is not necessarily relevant.

Furthermore, Baloochi’s question is relevant in places outside the US where drinking ages can be significantly younger.

Personally I think there is no reason – in a normal situation – to be serving alcohol to kids, because you gain nothing, and chances are they will abuse it.

As an aside, I think that sentence is supposed to say “ceremony or rite,” not “ceremony or right.” If it’s the way it’s written there’s probably a lot more room in the law to be meikil.

usa-tralian –

The Gemara’s reason is not that one might choke on it, it’s that it brings tzara’as (Pesachim 76b). The Gemara says another thing – reicha – but I thought that meant bad breath. Chances are I’m way off.

hello99 –

HaLeiVi hinted at a good point and that is that I would think that there should be no problem of ??? ?????? ????? ??????? by sakana. Do you have information about this? Because if so I would say that there will definitely be 60 in mommamia’s steak against the fish inside the sauce (we surely don’t say channan on the sauce, right?) and so it would be fine.

DyafMaven –

In this case it would work, because the company already did it. By the time mommamia took it off the shelf it was already batul (if in fact the fish is less than 1/60 of the entire product). Also, here it is better because fish isn’t “issur” by itself. You just can’t mix it with meat.

There’s actual fish in the ingredients?

You can photoshop a pic from the 1920’s today too.

About u’vchukoseihem, we’re not talking about drashos. The p’shat, according to everyone, is an issur based in an avodah zarah concern.

The fact that the Gemara mentions Toeva as the confines of the Issur doesn’t necessarily put it in that category.

Yes, it does. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to limit the issur. Because the other consideration would still apply.

The Rambam happens to say that many pagan rites were made up to satisfy lust, and therefore often contain very undesirable details.

I implied this in my first post, and I agree.

HaLeiVi –

Sorry about the Hebrew.

If you look in the Rambam you mentioned he writes that there a list of things which are to make a break from customs of the idol worshipers, one of them being lo silbash, but then he digresses and says that there is anyway the reason of pritzus. And the Gemara I quoted it clear that l’halacha this is the reason.

About u’vchukoseihem, my question is that if we learn from it halachos that relate to avodah zarah then what is it’s relation to arayos. Whether or not it appears more than once doesn’t address the question.

HaLeiVi –

You seem to think that the fact that it is not juxtaposed together with Arayos is proof that the Rambam held this is some kind of chok.

While this is an interesting take on it, it is not possible, as the Gemara in Nazir 59 is ???? that it has do with arayos, as the Gemara darshens that when it is a ????? it is assur and when it isn’t it is not.

I would come at it from another angle, with a similar question:

The issur of ????????? ?? ???? is ostensibly primarily an avodah zarah issue. If so, why is it written in the Torah as a preface to the parsha of arayos?

I don’t have an answer but I think there is something to be said along the lines of a lot of the attraction of avodah zarah has to do with arayos and there is a lot of connection between them.

According to Wikipedia, the scientific community doesn’t really believe in it.

The same article also states that in Cameron v Knapp, 137 Misc. 2d 373, 520 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987) the Supreme court rejected graphology as psychological testimony.

This is just extreme feminism applied to religion.

lol i think he meant illustrious