1. According to the Arizal, haircuts are not allowed from Pesach until Erev Shavuos. It is even prohibited to do so on Lag B’Omer. (Kaf Hachaim 493:13)

2. The Minchas Elazar of Munkatch writes that weddings are permitted according to the Arizal on Lag B’Omer itself. He explains that the Arizal forbade haircuts even on Lag B’Omer not because of the mourning period, but rather for mystical reasons that would not extend to prohibit weddings. Moreover, this stringency of the Arizal regarding haircuts was not meant for the laymen, but rather only for great people. He cites testimony that the great Divrei Chaim of Sanz allows for weddings to take place on Lag B’Omer. Some even cite that the Divrei Chaim himself made his son’s wedding on Lag B’Omer.

שו”ת מנחת אלעזר ח”ד סימן ס’ שכתב: “רק לענין התספורת אין לעשות עפ”י האריז”ל גם בל”ג בעומר בסוד השערות שלא נמתק בזה עד חג שבועות וכו’ אבל לענין שאר דברים אין נוהגי’ אבילות עפ”י האריז”ל בימי ספה”ע אמנם בודאי אדרבה יום ל”ג בעומר הוא יום משתה ושמחה גדולה, וגם לענין תספורת הוא רק לגדולים ובעלי קבלה דהא האריז”ל בעצמו הלך שם עם בנו למירון לעשות תגלחתו בל”ג בעומר ועשה אותו יום משתה ושמחה כמ”ש בשעה”כ והרי גילח בעצמו את בנו א”ו דהוא רק לגדולים ועכ”פ לשארי דברים הוא יום שמחות עפ”י האריז”ל כנודע שם”.

However, the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l advised against making weddings on Lag B’Omer, and writes that if possible one should wait to get married after Shavuos, seemingly to adhere to the stringency of the Arizal. (Shaarei Halacha Uminhag vol. 2 page 165) A similar strict ruling is expressed by the great Rabbe Ahron of Belz zt”l. The custom of Square Chassidim is to refrain from getting married even on Lag B’Omer. (See Netai Gavriel Pesach vol. 3 page 275)

3. One who follows the custom of the Arizal and wants to change his custom should first be matir neder (annul his vow). (Kaf Hachaim 493:14)

1. The Gemara states that twenty four thousand students of Rabbi Akiva died during the period of Sefira, which is the time between Pesach and Shavuos. Since Talmudic times, the period of Sefira is treated as a time of mourning and the conducting of weddings is prohibited during this season.

2. There are various customs regarding which days of Sefira are to be kept as a period of mourning and are therefore not times for a wedding to take place. Many refrain from getting married from Pesach until Lag B’Omer, while others  refrain from marrying from Rosh Chodesh Iyar until three days before Shavuos (there are other customs, see Rama and Mishnah Berurah).

3. Many times a chosson and kallah will keep the first half of Sefira and wish to make their wedding after Lag B’Omer. The poskim discuss whether someone who is keeping the second half of Sefira can come and dance at a wedding taking place during their Sefira.

4. Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe 159) writes that they are permitted to attend and even dance at the wedding. In addition, a rabbi can serve as the mesader kiddushin (orchestrate the wedding) even though he is still in the midst of his Sefira. He explains that the prohibition of getting married during Sefira belongs only to the chosson and kallah and when they are permitted to marry, others are permitted to attend. Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l agrees with the ruling of Harav Moshe and he allows for people to attend weddings during Sefira. He himself would also travel to weddings after Lag B’Omer, even though he was still keeping Sefira. He would, however, avoid being mesader kiddushin during that time (Shalmei Simcha page 84). Harav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l (Ashrei Haish vol. 3 65:30) and Harav Yaakov Kamanetzky zt”l (Emes L’Yaakov 493) rule leniently as well.

Harav Yitzchak Weiss zt”l, however, in his Sefer Minchas Yitzchak (4:84), disagrees and feels that one may not attend a wedding during their Sefira, even if the chosson and kallah are not keeping Sefira. It seems that the common custom is to rule leniently in accordance with the view of Harav Moshe Feinstein

During many wedding meals there is bread available for all the guests. Many caterers offer “Mezonos” bread for the occasion. This allows the guests to eat without washing and reciting Birchas Hamazon. The question is are these “Mezonos” bread really Mezonos or must we wash on these forms of bread and recite Hamotzei?

1. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 168) says, (based on the opinion of the Rambam), “if dough is kneaded with honey, milk or fruit juice, and the fruit juice is recognizable in the bread, the beracha on the bread is mezonos.” The Rama disagrees, and says such bread is still called “bread” (and the Beracha is Hamotzei) unless there is a lot of fruit juice or spices, in which case the Beracha would be mezonos. The Mishnah Berurah, as well as many other poskim, maintain that the fruit juice, etc has to be most of the mixture, and one has to actually taste it in the bread in order for the Beracha to be a mezonos.

2. The average “Mezonos” bread has a similar taste to that of regular bread. And thus according to the aforementioned poskim one would be required to wash and recite Hamotzei when eating them.

3. There is an opinion of the Daas Torah (Harav Sholom Schwadron zt”l, commonly known as the Maharsham 168:7) who maintains that if a mixture has mostly fruit juice then one does not need to taste it in the mixture. Those who recite the Blessing of Mezonos on “Mezonos” bread are relying on the opinion of the Maharsham. Since there is a lot of fruit juice in the “Mezonos” bread one need not wash on it, even if the bread is no sweeter than any other form of bread.

4. However, Harav Yisroel Belsky shlit”a (Mesorah vol. 1) writes at length that one should not rely in the opinion of the Maharsham, for numerous reasons. Firstly, many Rishonim explain that the main difference between bread dough (“hamotzi”) and cake dough (“mezonot”) is that the latter is sweeter and enjoyed far more often as a snack rather than as a meal. The fact that there is fruit juice in the dough is irrelevant if it does not affect the manner in which they are eaten. Furthermore, the Maharsham seems to imply that his ruling only applies according to the view of the Shulchan Aruch. However, according to the Rama one would still be required to taste the sweetness in the roll. Moreover, the Sefer Daas Torah was printed postmortem, accumulated from the unpublished notes and letters left over from the Maharsham. It is likely, argues Harav Belsky shlit”a, that he may not have wanted this ruling to be printed as normative Hallacha. Therefore he concludes that one must wash and recite Hamotzei on “Mezonos” bread.

5. Even those who follow the opinion that dough kneaded entirely with fruit juice automatically qualifies as “mezonos” should be aware that this refers only to 100% fruit juice. It does not include fruit juice from concentrate or a combination of pure fruit juice with some water added. (Minchas Yitzchak 9:17, opinion of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l in Vsein Bracha)

6. In addition if one were to make an entire meal out of this bread he is required to recite Hamotzei and Birchas Hamazon. To properly elucidate how much bread is required to be eaten to be considered “a meal” is far beond the scope of this work and would require the consultation of a Rav.

7. In conclusion, some poskim feel that “Mezonos” bread is as it seems mezonos and does not require the blessing of Hamotzei and Birchas Hamazon (unless enough is eaten to be considered a meal).[The Sefer Vzos Habracha page 20 reports that this is the opinion of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l and the rabbanim of the Badatz Eida Hachareidis. However, a different opinion of Harav Auerbach zt”l is cited in the Sefer Vsein Bracha.]

Most authorities, however, maintain that one must treat “Mezonos” bread as regular bread and one must recite Hamotzei and Birchas Hamazon. This is indeed the view of Harav Moshe Stern zt”l (the Rav of Debreczin Beer Moshe 8:37:6), Harav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l (cited in Vzos Habracha), Harav Yitzchak Liebes zt”l (Beis Avi 5:7),Harav Shmuel Wosner zt”l (cited in Vzos Habracha), ybc”l Harav Nissam Karelitz shlit”a (cited in Vzos Habracha),  Harav Yisroel Belsky shlit”a (Mesorah vol. 1), Harav Dovid Feinstein shlit”a (Vedibarta Bam page 81), Harav Rueven Feinstein shlit”a and Harav Moshe Heinemenn shlit”a.

ואעתיק כאן כרוז רבני ארצות הברית בענין לחמניות מזונות (מתורגם מאנגלית) וכמו שנדס בסוף ספר וזאת הברכה: “נהוג כיום לאפות לחמניות כאשר העיסה נילושה במיץ פירות ורשום עליהן ברכתן בורא מיני מזונות. העובדה היא שרוב בני אדם קובעים סעודה על לחמניות אלו, וכל הכוונה באפית לחמניות אלו היא לשמש תחליף לכריך גדול, הלכך אף אם דין העיסה יהיה כדין עיסה של מזונות (אשר ברוב הפעמים אינו כן), עדיין הלחמניות חייבות בנטילת ידים, המוציא וברכת המזון, מכיון שיש בהן שיעור שרוב בני אדם קובעים עליהן סעודה. הנוהג להגיש לחמניות אלה שרשום עליהן בורא מיני מזונות בארוחות כגון: חתונות, מלוה מלכה או במטוסים, כאשר כולם בודאי קובעים עליהם סעודה הוא מכשול לרבים! באנו על החתום: הרב אברהם ביק, הרב ראובן פיינשטין, הרב משה היינמן, הרב ישראל בעלסקי [ולהבדיל בין חיים לחיים] הרב משה שטערן, הרב אברהם בלומנקרנץ”.

 

I wanted to mention a short but important halacha related to burning the chametz.

There are two views in the Mishnah (Pesachim 21a) concerning the proper procedure for fulfilling the mitzvah of tashbisu, the Torah’s command to destroy all chometz on erev Pesach. The basic halachah is that tashbisu is accomplished by getting rid of chometz in any of the following ways: Burning it; crumbling it and throwing it to the winds; crumbling it and throwing it into an ocean or river etc. L’chatchilah, though, it has become customary to follow the view of R’ Yehudah who holds that burning in fire is the only legitimate method of getting rid of chometz (biur chometz) (Rama 445:1).

Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (Halichos Shlomo page 138) mentions that it is not advisable to pour lighter fluid, gasoline or other combustible materials over the chometz before burning it, for then the chometz becomes inedible – “destroyed” – by the gasoline, etc., rather than by the fire, and as mentioned before, this should be avoided. One should therefore be careful to leave at least a cezayis of chametz (the minimum amount required to burn) untouched by lighter fluid or other chemicals. Once a cezayis of chametz is sufficiently burned one may pour lighter fluid on the remaining bread to speed up the burning process.

1. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 101a) states that, “One who reads a pasuk from Shir HaShirim and transforms it into a sort of song or sings a pasuk in an inappropriate time such as at a party (beis hamishtaos) brings evil to the world, since the Torah wears sackcloth and complains before Hashem, ‘Your children have made me into a musical instrument that is played by scorners (leitzim).’”

2. Although this passage is not quoted by either the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch, the Magen Avraham (560:10), citing the Maharil, writes that it is improper to use pesukim as lyrics for songs that are “sung at simchat mereius” (discretionary gatherings). The Taz (560:5) adopts a similar approach to that of the Magen Avraham. The Mishnah Berurah (560:14) and the Aruch HaShulchan (560:7) cite the words of the Magen Avraham as well.

3. The very widespread practice today among even the most pious of Jews is to sing and listen to music whose lyrics are from Torah sources. Indeed, even Rav Moshe Feinstein, who himself rules strictly, acknowledged that, “Many are lenient and listen to tapes [of music whose lyrics are from Torah passages], and even in the previous generation people would play records of music whose lyrics were derived from Torah passages, and the rabbis of that generation did not register protest. And we see [today] that the majority of Torah observant Jews listen to such music including even the most pious of individuals.” (Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:142 and Y.D. 173)

4. Rav Moshe suggests that those who are lenient might argue that the Gemara refers only to Shir HaShirim, as there is more concern that the verses from that Sefer might be misinterpreted as a simple love song between a man and a woman, and not as an allegory to the love between Hashem and Am Yisrael, as Chazal interpret it. Rav Moshe notes that the difficulty with this approach is that Rashi in Sanhedrin 101a clearly believes that this prohibition applies to all of the Torah, and not just to Shir Hashirim. Moreover, the aforementioned Magen Avraham, Taz, and Mishnah Berurah appear to apply this prohibition to all parts of Torah.

5. A much stronger justification for the common practice might be derived from the Yad Ramah. The Yad Ramah writes that this prohibition exists only if the pesukim are sung derech sechok, in a joking or degrading manner, (although he cautions that he is unsure about this). This also seems to be the view of Rashi. Harav Nosson Gestetner zt”l also discusses this issue and agrees that it is only prohibited if the versus are song in a degrading or joking manner. Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l also rules that the prohibition applies only if the pesukim are used for love songs or for leitzanus, frivolity. He argues that the Yad Ramah’s uncertainty is resolved by the many eminent rabbanim and communities who have adopted the lenient approach to this issue. (Yabia Omer 3:15)

6. Harav Nissam Karelitz shlit”a adds that one may not even listen to someone sing verses of Torah, even if he is not singing along with him. He does write that one may sing and listen to the music if the music gives him inspiration. (Chut Shani Shabbos vol. 2 page 334) Similarly, Harav Nosson Gestetner zt”l (Lehoros Nason 4:45) writes that if one focuses on the meaning of the words, then he may listen to the music.

7. Under most circumstances the music at weddings is meant to enhance the simcha and is not considered frivolous. There are songs, however, where the versus are sung in jest or simply because they are catchy. In these cases it becomes less clear of the intentions of the singer and what purpose the versus serve. And in these cases the singer and listener should focus on the meaning of the words and try to gain inspiration from the music. Harav Yisroel Reisman shlit”a, in a shiur given on Sefer Tehillim, says that at weddings he tries to focus on the words of the songs and their meanings. This can turn a potentially frivolous song into an inspirational song.

1. The Rabbis of Jerusalem, in the second half of the nineteenth century, declared a self-imposed prohibition upon the Jewish community in Jerusalem, (not in the rest of Eretz Yisrael), forbidding the use of instrumental music at weddings, with the exception of drums to keep the beat for the singers.

2. Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l (Salmas Chaim 77) writes that the custom was first instated by Rav Meir Auerbach, (author of Imrei Binah, 1815-1877). He writes, “I heard that the Imrei Binah enacted the prohibition, and someone who is not concerned about it and denigrates it will suffer harsh retribution.”

3. The reason for the ban is a bit unclear. The Sefer Beis Chasanim writes that the decree was created during a terrible plague in 1865-1866 that killed many people including some of Yerushalayim’s finest talmidei chachomim. To find out why Hashem was punishing the city, one of the great rabbanim made a sha’alas chalom (a procedure which allows a question to be asked while one is sleeping). In his dream it became revealed that the cause of the plague was due to a lack of respect for the Kosel Hama’aravi. Because of that, Harav Meir Auerbach zt”l and the other elders enacted a decree that no musical instruments should be played at Yerushalayim weddings. Within a few days of enacting the decree the plague ceased. Rav Tuviah Freund shlit”a, in his Sefer Shalmei Simcha (48) says that he asked the ziknei and chachmei Yerushalayim, including Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv zt”l, about why there is no documentation of this event, (the plague itself is well documented, but no one recorded how it ended), and they told him that the main reason for the decree was due to modesty. Due to the novelty of musical instruments in Yerushalayim at the time, women and girls would draw near to get a better view and this sometimes led to mixing of men and women. To put an end to this, Rav Meir forbade music altogether. Although the Maharil Diskin seems to imply that this custom is in remembrance of the churban, Rav Freund explains that this rationale is in addition to the considerations of modesty.

4. The sefardim in Israel never accepted this ban. Therefore the sefardic custom is to allow for music at weddings in Yerushalayim. (See Shalmei Simcha ibid. and Yalkut Yosef Nisuin page 181)

5. It is unclear whether the ban was only instituted in the “Old City” of Yerushalayim, within the old city walls, or whether all of Yerushalayim was included. For normative halacha, a rabbi should be consulted.

עיין בספר שלמי שמחה הנ”ל שהביא מפי השמועה שדעת הגרשז”א זצ”ל והגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל לאסור כלי זמר בנישואין גם בירושלים החדשה. אכן כתב לו הגר”א נבנצהל שליט”א שדעת הגרשז”א זצ”ל לפעמים להלק, ולכן יש לשאול שאלת חתם. וכן בספר ישמח לב ס’ רנ”ז הביא מפי השמועה מהגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל שלא גזרו אלא על עיר העתיקה אכן שוב הביא שמועה אחרת להיפך, וצ”ע. וע”ע בשו”ת חמדת צבי ס’ נ”ב.

6. The poskim discuss whether the ban was only instituted against live music or whether it included cassettes or cds:

Harav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l was asked whether one may play music using a record player in Yerushalayim. He rules that one may not. It would seem that according to Harav Sonnenfeld zt”l all music, both live and recorded, is banned in Yerushalayim. (See Tzitz Eliezer 15:33) This is also the view of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l and Harav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l.

Harav Yehuda Waldenberg zt”l permits recorded acapella music (just vocals). It is unclear, however, whether he also permits all forms of recorded music.

Harav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg zt”l rules that all forms of recorded music are permitted. (Shalmei Simcha ibid.)

If you have a question, comment, or an idea for an article please email me at avizakutinsky@gmail.com.

(This should not be relied upon for practical halacha. When a question arises a Rabbi should be consulted.)

Please Read Forgetting The Torah (Part 1) before reading this post.

 

Reading Tombstones-

1. The Gemara in Horayos 13b state that reading the text of a tombstone causes one to forget his learning. This ruling is cited by the Mishnah Berurah (2:2).

2. Harav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a (Sefer Hazikaron 2:26) maintains that it is preferable not to read the tombstone in one’s mind, even without verbalizing the words.

3. The authorities cite the Arizal who explained that it is only a concern if the words are protruding from the stone. If, however, the words are engraved one may read them (Nagid U’Mitzvah, Shaar Hamitzvos Veschanan, Mishnas Chassidim day 3, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 128:13, Kaf Hachaim 2:3).

4. Many have the custom to place stones on graves that they visit. The Beer Heitiv (124:8) explains that the custom of placing stones or tufts of grass on the grave is for the honor of the deceased person by marking the fact that his grave has been visited. The Sefer Yosef Ometz (page 273) cites those that say that placing a stone on a grave removes its ability to cause forgetfulness and that once one places a stone there one may read the tombstone. He is unsure, however, whether there is legitimate sources for this.

Placing Two Articles Of Clothing On At One Time-

1. The Magen Avraham (2:3) writes that one of the activities that causes forgetfulness is placing two articles of clothing on at the same time.

2. Many poskim maintain that one may don two shoes at the same time. Accordingly, one may don shoes with galoshes. (see Kaf Hachaim 2:6, Rivevos Efraim 2:4, 3:6. Aruch Hashulchan 2:6, Shulchan Melachim 3:17, Tzitz Eliezer 7:2. See however Maasef Lchol Machanos 12 for a dissenting view.)

3. According to Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l one may remove two articles of clothing at the same time. The prohibition only extended to donning clothing, not removing them (Halichos Shlomo vol. 1 page 22). However, Harav Yitzchak Eisik Yehuda Yechiel Safrin zt”l of Komarno, known as the Komarno Rebbe, writes that removing two articles of clothing at the same time is also detrimental to one’s memory (Shulchan Hatahor O.C. 2).

If you have a question, comment, or an idea for an article please email me at avizakutinsky@gmail.com.

(This should not be relied upon for practical halacha. When a question arises a Rabbi should be consulted.)

1. The Gemara in Shabbos (151b) states, “Rav Chanina said: It is forbidden to sleep alone in a house, and whoever sleeps alone in a house will be seized by Lilith (Lilith or Lil’ is the mother of demons- Zohar, Pekudei 276b).” Interestingly, there is an earlier source for this prohibition. The great Tanna, Rav Eliezer Hagadol, writes in his last will and testament, “My son make sure not to sleep in any house alone at night since this can cause one to be seized by Lil’ and once Lil’ seizes a person or a child she removes them from this world.” (Orchos Chaim 59) This law is cited by the Shulchan Aruch Harav (Shemiras Haguf 6), Magen Avraham (239) and the Mishna Berurah (239).

2. The Rif and Rosh have a slightly different text of the Gemara. According to their version the Gemara is forbidding sleeping alone in a house at night. Sleeping during the day would be permissible. Virtually all of the later-day authorities rule in accordance with this view (Eishel Avraham 239, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah). The Machatzis Hashekel adds that even according to the standard edition of the Gemara (not that of the Rif and Rosh) the prohibition only exists at night.

3. The commentaries make note that the Zohar (Tazria 45a) seems to forbid sleeping in a house alone even during the day. The only distinction between the day and night, according to the Zohar, is that sleeping during the day is only a problem in a house that is distanced and secluded from other homes. While at night it is a problem even if the house is close to other homes. (see Sdei Chemed vol. 4 page 525, vol. 9 Divrei Chachamim 85) [A baby in a crib should not be left alone in the house during the day or night. (Orchos Chaim 48)]

4. The Gaon of Butchetch writes that the problem is sleeping alone, however, one may take a nap alone at night.

5. The Gaon of Butchetch continues that “perhaps this law does not apply to women and they may sleep alone at night.” However, the Kaf Hachaim (239:17) maintains that the prohibition applies to women as well.

6. The Magen Avraham writes that one may not sleep alone in a room even if there are others in the house and the adjacent rooms. This is also the view of the Mishnah Berurah.The Sdei Chemed proves that this is indeed the view of the Rif.

The Mishnah Berurah (Shaar Hatzion 239) writes that therefore if there are others in the house and not the room, one should leave the room door ajar at night. If a man is sleeping alone in a room and the only other person in the house is a women in which case it is forbidden to leave the door open because of yichud. Rather, one should lock the door and since he is performing the mitzvah of avoiding yichud he need not worry about any danger.

According to the Mishnah Berurah if one is sleeping alone in a room and there are other people in the house one should leave the door ajar to avoid any hallachic problems (assuming this will not lead to the prohibition of yichud). The Komarna Rebbe writes that in case of need one may rule leniently as long as he leaves the “door wide open.” (Shulchan Hatahor 241:10) The Chelkas Yaakov (O.C. 57) and Harav Neventzhal shlit”a (Biyitzchak Yikarei) maintain that one may rule leniently even if the door is closed as long as it is not locked.

Other poskim maintain that the entire prohibition exists if one sleeps alone in the house. However, if there are others in the house, even though there is no one else in the room, it is permissible. This is in complete disagreement with the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah. The Sdei Chemed writes that this the view of Rav Moshe Ashkanazi. This view is also cited by the Aruch Hashulchan. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l is also cited as ruling this way (see Shilhi Dkayta 53).

7. Many poskim, including the Sdei Chemed, Kaf Hachaim, Gaon of Butchetch and Rav Gershon Henoch of Radzin, maintain that if there is a light in the room (either electric or clear strong moonlight through the window) there is no prohibition. Similarly, someone asked the Debriciner Rav (Beer Moshe 3:45) what should he do during the summer when his family is away in the summer home and he is alone. He answered that if he keeps a light on his room (or there is light from the hallway) it is okay to sleep alone since the gemara in Brachos says (43b) that a fire is equivalent to another person. Furthermore the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 2:6) adds the word “dark” house. Therefore leaving on a light would resolve the issue. The Chazon Ish, however, feels that having a light on does not permit sleeping alone (Dinim VHanhagos Chazon Ish page 57).

8. The Gaon of Butchetch writes that perhaps one may rule leniently if there is a Mezuzah on the doorpost. The Mezuzah protects those inside of the room from demons. The Gemara which prohibits sleeping alone was discussing homes without a Mezuzah (that of a non-Jew). However, the Kaf Hachaim and Harav Binyamin Zilber zt”l (Birur Halacha 3:239) do not agree with this ruling.

9. According to the Gra (Maaseh Rav 221) and the Dovev Meisharim (79) one may sleep alone in a Sukah. Since sleeping in a Sukah is a mitzvah one need not concern about danger.

10. The Shu”t Binyan Olam (Y.D. 62) writes that just as one may not sleep alone in a house, one may not sleep alone outdoors in a slightly deserted area. He adds that there are more demons in a field than indoors, therefore sleeping in a field is even worse than sleeping alone indoors.

If you have a question, comment, or an idea for an article please email me at avizakutinsky@gmail.com.

(This should not be relied upon for practical halacha. When a question arises a Rabbi should be consulted.)

1. The Gemara (Nidah 17a) emphasizes the importance of discarding one’s nail clippings properly. The reason that the Gemara gives is that a pregnant woman who steps on a nail clipping is in danger of a miscarriage. Accordingly, the Gemara adds that, “One who burns his nails is a chassid, one who buries them is a tzadik, and one who throws them on the floor in a public place is a rasha.” This teaching is codified by many later day authorities including the Mishnah Berurah (260:6).

2. It is therefore imperative that one throws the nails down the toilet or in the garbage. Many great tzaddikim, including the Chazon Ish, were particular to burn their nails. (See Sefer Taameh Dikra, Chut Shani vol. 1 page 62 and Bitzeil Hachachma 2:35)

3. The Beer Heitiv (260:2) cites an interesting explanation as to why stepping on nails can be harmful to pregnant women. He explains that when Adam and Chava before they sinned were covered in a hard nail like membrane. After Chava caused Adam to sin the nail rescinded and now only covers the ends of our toes and fingers. Since Chava caused the nails to become removed from the body, the nails are forever dangerous to pregnant women.

אך א”כ משמע דלאו דוקא לאשה מעוברת אלא הה”ד לכל אשה, וכעין זה מצאתי בלקוטי מהרי”ח ח”ב דף ה’ ע”ב והשאיר בצ”ע. וע”ע בנימוקי יוסף מועד קטן י”ח. שמפלת “משום מיאוס, וי”א משום כשפים”.

4. The Prisha (241) writes that there should be no difference between toenails and fingernails, both may not be placed in an area where a pregnant woman may step on it.34 A similar ruling can be found in the Ben Ish Chai (Year 2 Lech Lecha 14). [Interestingly, the Sefer Otzar Yad Hachaim (1146), however, notes that he found in an Italian Yom Kippur Machzor that one of the things that one asks for atonement is for “throwing one’s fingernails (in an open area).” This implies that the law only applies to fingernails and not toenails.] One should rule stringently in accordance with the view of the Prisha and Ben Ish Chai.

כן נראה פשוט ובפרט דהוי חשש סכנה, ומה עוד דאינו מוכח מהמחזור שאין קפידא בשל צפרני רגליו, דאולי נקט צפרני היד משום שזה מצוי ביותר שיזרוק הצפורן יותר משל צפרני רגליו ע”ש.

5. The Sefer Sheilas Rav (Chapter 12:8) states that Harav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a maintains that a woman should not walk on her own nails or on the nails of a non-Jew. [It must be noted that Harav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a professed that his opinions stated in the Sefer Sheilas Rav should not be relied upon for normative halacha.] However, Harav Yitzchak Zilberstein shlit”a cites Harav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a as ruling that a pregnant woman may walk on the nails of a non-Jew (Melachim Omnayich page 341). For normative halacha, a rav should be consulted.

6. The Gemara (Moed Katan 18a) states that throwing nails in a place where women do not frequent is permitted, since there is no concern that a pregnant woman will step on the nails. It is therefore permissible to throw one’s nails in a bais medrash or in a men’s mikvah (if these areas are not frequented by women).

7. The Gemara says that if the nails fell to the floor and are then swept to a different area they no longer pose any danger to women.

8. The Prisha, based upon the previous halacha, writes that if one dropped a nail he should sweep the area thereby moving the nail and nullifying it’s dangerous properties. The Mishnah Berurah cites the Elyah Rabba who feels that the danger is only removed if the nails are moved to an entirely different room. If, however, they are moved within the room they still are dangerous. The Chida (Birkei Yosef 260:6) rules in accordance with the Prisha. Accordingly, if a pregnant woman enters an area where manicures are taking place the area should be swept in front of her.

ועיין בפרי חדש יו”ד ס’ קט”ז, הובא במחצית השקל ס’ ר”ס ס”ק א’, דמ”מ מסתברא דה”מ דכניש מדוכתא קמא דנפלי ביה ממילא, אבל אי לקח למקום אחד ומיד היה דעתו להזיז אותם למקום השני, אותו המקום השני יש סגולת מקום הראשון ומזיק. וע”ע בספר שמירת הגוף והנפש סימן ס”ח שהביא עוד דברים בענין נטילת צפרנים ע”ש ואכמ”ל.

If you have a question, comment, or an idea for an article please email me at avizakutinsky@gmail.com.

1. The Gemara in Brachos (24a) states that one is not allowed to pray in the presence of a married woman whose hair is uncovered. This may cause problems for those reciting blessings under the chuppah, since many times there are women present who are not properly covering their hair.

2. Many rely on the well known heter of the Aruch Hashulchan (75:9). The Aruch Hashulchan writes that in a locale where the majority of married women do not cover their hair, the sight of uncovered hair will not cause men to have inappropriate thoughts, and it is therefore permitted to pray and recite blessings in the presence of a woman whose hair is uncovered. A similar view is expressed by the Ben Ish Chai, the Siridei Eish, Harav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, and Harav Shlomo Zalman Aauerbach zt”l. Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that, in case of great need, one may rely upon the opinion of the Aruch Hashulchan (for the full list of sources see Sefer Umekareiv Biyamin 1).

3. It is important to stress the fact that there is a biblical obligation for all married women to cover their hair (Kesubos 72). That obligation is in complete effect to this day. The Aruch Hashulchan was not ruling or implying that married women need not cover their hair. He was addressing the rabbinic prohibition of praying in the presence of uncovered hair. That prohibition, feels the Aruch Hashulchan, is only in affect in an area where women cover their hair properly. In those areas, the presence of uncovered hair may lead to inappropriate thoughts and should be treated like an ervah (nakedness), and therefore one may not pray in it’s presence. In an area where, unfortunately, women stopped adhering to the law and began to uncover their hair, the sight of hair is mere commonplace and one may pray in it’s presence.

4. Many authorities, including the Chazon Ish, Mishnah Berurah, the Satmer Rebbe zt”l, and ybc”l Harav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”a, disagree with the ruling of the Aruch Hashulchan and they feel that one may never pray in the presence of a married woman whose hair is uncovered (see Umekareiv Biyamin ibid.).

5. The permissible view of the Aruch Hashulchan would only allow for one to pray in front of a women whose hair is uncovered. It will not permit prayer in the presence of a woman who is not dressed properly.

6. The poskim debate what the proper procedure is for praying or reciting blessings in front of an improperly dressed woman. Some poskim maintain that one may recite the blessings as long as his eyes are closed or he is looking in a siddur and not at the woman. Others maintain that merely closing one’s eyes does not suffice, and one must completely turn away from the woman in question. One should try to adhere to the strict view and turn away from those that are not dressed properly and then recite the blessings. However, in case of necessity one may close one’s eyes and recite the blessings, and he need not turn his body in a different direction (see Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch 75, Taz, Bach and Mishnah Berurah on 75. Ishei Yisrael page 665 and Yabia Omer 3:7).

If you have a question, comment, or an idea for an article please email me at avizakutinsky@gmail.com.