TRADITION: A Journal alOrthodox Thought

1. David Bleich

SURVEY OF RECENT HALAKHICPERIODICAL LITERATURE

THE BABIRUSA: A KOSHER PIG?

An Associated Press news bulletindated November 13, 1984, reported that aspecies of swine closely related to thedomestic pig is a kosher animaL. The

author alleged that the ba birusa, whose

native habitat is Indonesia, is an animalpossessing two stomachs and suggested

that it also chews the cud. Since, in

common with all swine, the babirusa alsohas split hoofs, the animal was alleged topossess the physical characteristics of akosher species. The news items appearedin many American newspapers and wasfeatured on television newscasts.

The Associated Press bulletin wasbased upon a report published by the"lational Research Council (NRC). In anarticle appearing in the Fall, 1984 issue of

J/orizons, a publication of the U.S.

Agency for International Development,

John Daly writes:

The ba birusa stands out among pig-likeanimals because of its unique stomach,similar to a ruminant's, , , , This maymake the ba birusa a more efficientmeat producer in some environments,In addition, cultures that do not

eat swine might accept the babirusa,(p 28)

In Israel, the report of the existenceof an animal whose meat is allegedlyindistinguishable from that of a pig in

taste and appearance, but which is never-theless kosher. created somewhat of asensation, Newspaper accounts indicatethat a number of prominent rabbinicauthorities whose views were solicitedwere understandably incredulous and

56

reserved decision, In particular, some

scholars expressed concern with regard towhether the configuration of the animal'stoes manifests the criteria of split hoofswhich are the hallmark ofa kosher species,Gilyon Maharsha, Yoreh De 'ah 79: i, cit-ing earlier authorities, states that the hoofsmust be split along their entire length,The London Jewish Chronicle, "lovembcri 6, 1984, p, I, quoted an anonymousAnglo-Jewish scholar who expressed con-cern that the animal may have been theproduct of crossbreeding between a kosheranimal and the non-kosher pig,

The phenomenon of a kosher pig isnot entirely unknown in rabbinic litera-ture, R, Ilayyim ibn Attar, Or ha-llayyim,Leviticus 11:3, quotes an unidentifiedaggadie source which comments: "Why isit named 'hazi,? Because it will one day'return' to become permissible," i,c" thepig will return to its pre-Sinaitic status asa permitted source of meat. In his com-mentary on Leviticus 11 :7, Or ha-Hayyimquestions the meaning of this statement.It is a fundamental principle of Judaismthat the Torah is immutable; hence a pigwhich does not chew its cud cannot at anytime be declared kosher.' Accordingly,

Or ha-llayyim comments that the phrase"but it does not chew its cud" which occursin Leviticus 11:7 is conditional in nature,i,e" the pig is forbidden only so long as itdoes not chew its cud, "but in theeschatological era it will chew its cud andwill 'return' to become permissible,"

lndeed, the etymological analysis pre-sented by Or ha-llayyim would lead toacceptance of a cud-chewing pig not only

l'RA/J/nON, 2/(4), Fa//1985 ê 19X5 Rabbinical Council of America

J, David Bleich

as a kosher animal but as a harbinger ofthe eschatological era as welL. A similar

statement is made by Rema of Panu,Asarah l\1a'amarot, Ma'amar Hikur Din,II, chapter 17.

The comments of Or ha-Hayyim are,however, sharply challenged by R, Baruchha-Lcvi Epstein, Torah Temimah, Leviti-cus I 1:7, sec, 2L Torah Temimah assertsthat the only rabbinic statement even

vagucly rcscmbling that which is quotedby Or ha-Hayyim is an etymologicalcomment on the word "hazir" found inVa- Yikra Rabbah 13:5 and repeated inKohelet Rabbah 1:28.1 In context, themidrashic statement is clearly an allegori-cal refcrcncc to the eschatological role ofgentile nations in causing the return ofIsrael to her original statc of grandcur. Asimilar interpretation was presented muchearlier by Rabbenu Bahya in his com-mentary on Leviticus 11 :74

Whether or not there is a specificmidrashic referencc to a pig which chewsthe cud, it would appear that an animalwhich has split hoofs and which also chewsits cud is ipso facto kosher. Indeed, Jewishlaw does not even deem it esscntial toexamine an animal for the manifestationof both split hoofs and the chewing of thecud, Leviticus 11 :4-6 enumerates threespecies of ruminants which chew the cudbut which do not have split hoofs: thecamel, the rock-badger and the hare,Deuteronomy 14:7 names a fourth animal,the shesu 'ali which is described as chewingthe cud but as not having cloven hoofs,

This animal is described by the Gemara,Hullin 60b, as a creature which has twobacks and two spinal columns. TheGcmara, Niddah 24a, further explains thatthe shesu 'ah is the progeny of a permittedspecies, i n effect, the birth of a shesu 'ah is

an anomaly, Both Leviticus 11:7 andDeuteronomy 14:8 name only one animal,the swine, which has split hoofs but doesnot chew its cud, The Gemara, Hulln59a, on the basis of a pleonasm, regardsthese enumerated species, not as para-digmatic, but as exhaustive, Thus the

Gemara comments, "The Ruler of theuniverse knows that therc is no other beast

that chews the cud and is unclean exceptthc camel (and the other species enumer-ated by Scripture J" and similarly com-ments, "The Ruler of the universe knowsthat there is no other beast that parts thehoofs and is unclean except the swine,"These dicta pave the way for a determina-tion that an animal may be declared

kosher even without examination for thepresence of both split hoofs and the chew-ing of the cud, The Gemara, Hulln 59a,notes that the absence of upper incisorsand canines is a characteristic of all rumi-nants with the exception of the camcl

which has canines in bothjaws,5 Accord-ingly, declares the Gemara, "If a man waswalking in the desert and found an animalwith its hoofs cut off, he should examinethe mouth; if it has no upper tecth he maybe certain that it is clean, otherwise he

may be certain that it is unclean; provided,however, , , , he recognizes the youngcameL." The possibility that the animalmay be a young camel must be excludedsince, even though the young camel hasno teeth, it will eventually develop canines,The Gemara explicitly negates the possi-bility that there may exist some otheranimal that lacks teeth, i,e" a ruminantthat chews the cud but is non-kosher byvirtue of its non-cloven hoofs, Thus, if itwere to be shown that the babirusa lacksincisors and canines on its upper jaw itmay be declared a kosher species on thatbasis alone, Absence of incisors andcanines is itself evidence that the animal isa cud-chewing ruminant.

The Gemara continues with thedescription of another criterion by meansof which an animal may be recognizcd asa member of a permitted species: "If aman was walking in a desert and found ananimal with its hoofs cut off and its mouthmutilated, he should examine its flank; ifit runs crosswise he may be certain that isclean, but if not he may be certain that it isunclean; provided, howeve,r, he recognizes

the arod, , , , Where should he examinethe flesh? , , , Under the rump," In kosherspecies the flcsh under the tail in the vicin-ity of the rump runs in a criss-cross

fashion; one series of muscles runs down-

57

TRADITION: A Journal alOrthodox Thought

ward so that that portion of the meat isreadily torn vertically and another seriesof muscles runs transversely so that thatportion of the meat is readily torn hori-zontally, The Gemara explicitly states thatwe are the recipients of a tradition receivedby \-oses at Mount Sinai to the effectthat the arod is the sole non-kosher animalmanifesting this characteristic, Thus, ifthe babirusa indeed manifests this char-acteristic there would be yet additionalgrounds for assuming that it is a kosherspecies.

There is yet another means of recog-nizing a kosher species, The Mishnah,Niddah 51 b, declares, "Every r species)which has horns has (split) hoofs," i,e" isa kosher species, According to RabbenuTam, cited by Tosafot, lIullin 59a, thatdictum is accepted as a unanimous pro-nouncement and hence, as Maharsha, adlocum, explains, the presence of any typeof horn is a sufficient criterion of kashrut,However, Ravan, also cited by Tosafot,lIullin 59a, maintains that this dictumreflects thc opinion of R, Dosa who isreported to have declared, "Those thathave horns need not be examined as totheir hoofs" (Hullin 59b), According toRavan, the Sages disagree with R, Dosaand require the presence of both hornsand split hoofs, However, even accordingto Ravan, the Sages accept the presence

of any type of horn as a sufficient criterionof the kashrUi of the species provided thatthe animal also manifests split hoofs,"Thus, if an animal possesses split hoofs,the presence of horns is sufficient to guar-antee that it is not a forbidden swine, Ac-cordingly, Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah79: i, rules ", , , if its hoofs arc split it iscertain that it is clean, provided he recog-nizes a pig; if it has horns there is nopossibility that it might be a pig and it isclean. "i

The Gemara, Hullin 59b, does indeedstate that, in order to qualify as a dis-tinguishing criterion of an animal whosehelev is permitted, the horn must beforked (according to Rashi: branched, likeantlers; according to Tosajot: bent orhooked at the end) or, if not forked, the

58

horn must be rounded (i,e" composed oftubes or scales, one over the other),pointed (or according to one interpreta-tion advanced by Rashi, rounded and

narrow) and notched (i.e., rough), and thenotches must run one into the other"However, such distinctive horns are re-quired only in order to determine that theanimal is a hayyah or "wild beast" whosehelev is permitted; the presence of anytype of horn is indicative of the fact thatthe animal is a member of a kosher species,Thus Shulhan Arukh omits reference tothe presence of a distinctive horn indeclaring that the presence of horns issufficient to exclude the possibility thatan animal may he a pig9

In discussing the status of the babi-rusa the Jewish Chronicle quotes the

Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, RabbiMordecai Eliyahu, as stating, inter alia,

, the question of its tusks is also rele-vant."IO The question of the babirusa's

tusks, which are virtually perpendicularand point upwards in the manner of horns,is indeed relevant in the sense that thepresence of horns would also, in and ofitself, be sufficient to distinguish the babi-rusa from forbidden forms of swine,

Coupled with split hoofs, the presence ofhorns would be sufficient evidence of thcanimal's kashrut, Horns, however, bydefinition, emerge from the head,

11 Pic-

tures of the hahirusa show upwardly

curved projections emanating from thearea of the snout. Presumably, those

tusk-like projections are rooted in the jawor in the cheek, rather than in the head orskull, and, halakhically, would not becategorized as horns, Accordingly, the

presence or absence of such tusks wouldbe of no halakhic significaneeY

Assuming that the babirusa manifeststhe requisite criteria of a kosher animal,the faet that it resembles a pig in appear-ance and taste is not sufficient groundsfor banning its consumption as koshermeat. The Sages of the Talmud did indeedpromulgate numerous edicts in order toprevent inadvertent transgression of bib-lical laws as the result of possible confu-sion between that which is permitted and

J. David Bleich

that which is forbidden in situations inwhich the permitted and the prohibitedclosely resemble one another. Yet, absentspecific rabbinic legislation, there are nogrounds to forbid any matter which has

not been expressly prohibited,The earliest formulation of this prin-

ciple occurs in a responsum of Rav SarShalom Ga 'on, Teshuvoi ha- Ge 'onim:Hemdah Genuzah, no. 77, Sandwicheswere apparently known and enjoyed asearly as the geonic period since the inter-locutor asks whether it is permissible "tomake a bun and to place in it (a piece ofltailor fat meat." H is concern was that thebread might crumble and the particles ofbread which break off from the bun mightlater be eaten with cheese, It is because ofsuch concern that rabbinic law declaresbread containing either dairy or meat

products to be non-kosher, unless the

bread is baked in a distinctive manner.

However, with regard to placing meat inthe already baked bun, Rav Sar ShalomGa 'on answers unequivocally that there isno reason for concern since there is nodecree of "our early teachers" prohi bitingthe eating of meat sandwiches.

There are, however, two logicalpossibilities that must be discussed whichwould have the effect of negating theconclusion that, upon manifesting the

physical criteria of a permitted species,

the babirusa may be considered a kosheranimaL. The possibility must be consideredthat thc animal may have originated eitheras the result of cross breeding between akosher species and a swine or as the resultof a genetic mutation, The contention thatthe babirusa may perhaps be the result oferossbreeding may be dismissed quitereadily, The possibility of the emergenceof an interspecies of this nature, par-ticularly of one which is not sterile andcan reproduce, is extremely unlikely, tosay the least. From the halakhic van-tage point it is regarded as impossible,

Although the Gemara, Bekhorol 7a,accepts the possibility of animals ofdifferent species mating and producingoffspring, it rejects the opinion whichasserts that progeny may be born of a

union between members of kosher andnon-kosher species,

The possibility of a genetic mutationwhich is transmitted to future generationsis much more within the realm of bothscientific and halakhic possibility, Thehalakhah to be applied in the event of theoccurrence of such a contingency is clear,Codifying a principle laid down in theMishnah, Bekhoroi 5b, Shulhan Arukh,Yoreh De'ah 79:2, rules that the offspringof an unclean mother is non-kosher evenif the animal itself manifests all thecharacteristics of a kosher animaL. Thecomments of many authorities, particu-larly Shakh, Yoreh De 'ah 79:4, and PriMegadim, Sirlei Da 'al 79: 1, indicate thatthe principle involved is that ofyoise, i.e.,anything which "emerges" from, or isproduced by, an unclean animal is itselfnot kosher. lt is on the basis of this prin-ciple that, for cxamplc, the milk of non-kosher animals is forbidden,

R, Hayyim ha-Levi Soloveichik, in hiscommentary on the Rambarn, HilkholMa 'akhaloi Asuroi 3: i I, explains thishalakhic provision in an entirely differentmanner. R, Hayyim states that, in effect,an animal is a member of a given species,not because it possesses the distinctivecharacteristics of that species, but becauseit was born to a mother who is a memberofthat species. It is, then, maternal identitywhieh is transmitted to progeny and whichdetermines the species to which the off-spring belong for purposes of halakhic

classification, On the basis of eitheranalysis, the offspring of a non-kosheranimal is not kosher even if, as the resultof genetic mutation, it manifests the

criteria of a kosher animaL. i.

The two theories do, however, yielda halakhic difference with regard to thepunishment to be administered for con-suming the meat of an ostensibly "kosher"animal born to a non-kosher mother. Ifthe animal is regarded as intrinsicallynon-kosher, the punishment is lashes; ifthe offspring is only the "product" of anon-kosher species, no lashes are admin-istered for eating its flesh, There are alsoother halakhic ramifications which are

59

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

contingent upon acceptance of one or theother of these theories, If the offspring isintrinsically non-kosher there is no pun-ishment of karet for partaking of theanimal's he/ev, since the prohibitionagainst partaking of he/ev does not extendto the fat of non-kosher species which

cannot be offered as sacrifices. Further-more, if the animal is itself kosher, butforbidden as the "product" of a non-

kosher animal, upon shehitah its fleshwould not defile as carrion; if the animalis intrinsically not kosher, it would defileas carrion even if killed by means ofshehitah.14

Although a clean animal horn of anunclean animal is not kosher, absent evi-dence that such a phenomenon hasoccurred, there is no halakhie basis forsuspecting that an animal manifesting thecharacteristics of kosher species is inrcality the offspring of a non-kosher

animaL. Were this not the case, no animalcould be definitively accepted as kosherunless a witness was present at its birth toobserve that, in actuality, it is the offspringof a kosher mother. The general halakhicprinciple is that such unlikely contingen-cies need not be contemplated,

Thus it might appear that there areno halakhic grounds for a suspicion thatthe babirusa is a genetic mutation of aforbidden species of swine and hence itselfnon-kosher. There are, however, groundsfor skepticism with regard to the permis-sibility of the ba birusa. The Gemara,Ilullin l09b, declares:

For everything God has forbidden uslie has permitted us an equivalent: Hehas forbidden us blood but has per-mitted us liver; He has forbidden usintercourse during menstruation buthas permitted us the blood of purifica-tion; he has forbidden us the fat ofcattle but has permitted us the fat of awild beast; He has forbidden us swine's

flesh but has permitted us the brain ofthe shibbUla, , , ,

If the babirusa is indeed a "kosher pig" itis a much more obvious example of akosher counterpart to the non-kosher

60

swine than is the brain of the fish knownas the shibbuta, Moreover, the Gemara,Hu/lin 80a, states that the only animalswhich are kosher arc the ten species

specifically enumerated in Deuteronomy14:4-5, This dictum is recorded as anormative ruling by Rambam, Hi/khotMa 'akha/oi Asurot 1 :8, There are, ofcourse, other kosher animals which onemight regard as distinct species, includingperhaps the kevi, which according to

one talmudic opinion is an "independentspecies," Those animals, for purposes

of halakhic classification, are subsumedunder one or another of the species

enumerated by Scripture, 15

Thus, assuming that the bahirusamanifests the criteria of a clean animal, tobe regarded as kosher it must be classified,not as a "kosher pig," or even as an inde-pendent species, but as a subspecies ofone of the ten kosher animals enumeratedby Scripture, Given its biological andanatomical similarity to the swine, thepossibility that it is a mutation of a swineappears more cogent. Since, in this case,there are grounds for suspecting that thebabirusa is "a clean animal which hasbeen born of an unclean animal" it wouldappear to this writer that its status wouldhe, if not definitivcly non-kosher, de

minim us, that of a salek, i,e" an animal ofdouhtful kashrut,

In any event, it would not be per-mitted to cat the babirusa for an entirelydifferent consideration, According to anumber of latter-day a uthorities, it is for-bidden to eat the meat of any hithertounknown species even if it possesses thecharacteristics of a kosher animal and doesnot in any way resemble a non-kosher

species, Hokhmat Adam 36: 1 declares,", ' , we cat only (those animals) withregard to which we have received a tradi-tion from our fathers," Thercfore, "it isforbidden for us to cat of the 'wild beasts'

(hayyot) except the deer which is recog-nized by us," This rule is stated by Rema,Yoreh De'ah 82:3, with regard to birds andis extended by Hokhmat Adam to encom-pass animal species as welL. HokhmatAdam's position appears to be based upon

1. David Bleich

a comment of Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 80: I,although the thrust of Shakh's c,omment

is understood in a different man~-t by PriMegadim, Sijiei Da'ar 80: i. HokhmatAdam's ruling is endorsed by Hazon Ish,Y oreh De 'ah 11 :4-5, as an established

practice, 16

In point offact, the entire discussionis only of academic interest. Science News,vol. 126, no, 2 (November 24, 1984),

p. 327, reveals that babirusas are to befound in this country in the Los AngelesZoo, A Zoo official, Dr. Warren Thomas,is reported as stating that the babirusa isnot a ruminant and does not chew itscud17

In actuality, it has been known forsome time that the babirusa is not a trueruminant. With thc exception of an earlyinvcstigatinn conducted by Willem Vrolik,Recherches danatomie ,:omparée sur IeBabyrussa (Amsterdam, i 844) and a briefdiscussion by a noted nineteeth-century

English anatomist and paleontologist, SirRobert Owen, On rhe Anaromy of Ver-rebrares (London, 1868), I I 1,465, the solescientific study ofthc babirusa is thc 1940reportofD, Dwight Davis, "Notes on theAnatomy ofthc Babirusa," Field Museumof Narural Hisrory, XXII, 363-41 i. Thatstudy was based upon post-mortem dis-section of a babirusa that had died in theChicago Zoo, Davis, p, 388, reports that,although the animal's stomach, except forthe absence of an omasum, is strikinglysimilar to that of the domestic sheep, thearrangement of the stomach "is scarcelysuch that true rumination could takc place

and it is certain that the similarity isdue to convergence, and consequently iswithout such phylogenetic significance, "18Moreover, the non-ruminating characterofthe babirusa was recognized well over ahundred years ago by Sir Robert Owen,in his previously cited discussion,

19

Moreover, a report issued by theNational Research Council, Lirrle-KnownAsian Animals with a Promising Eco-

nomic Future (Washington, 1983), p. 89,states, "The male has large upper caninesthat grow upwards, piercing right throughthe flesh of the snout and curving back

and downwards towards the foreheadwithout even entering the mouth," Thusthe tusks of the babirusa are not horns,hut are described as canines, As has beenindicated earlier, the Gemara, lIullin 59a,declarcs that the presence of incisors orcanines is a conclusive indication that theanimal docs not chew the cud, As statedby Rabbi Eliyahu, the "question of (thebabirusa's 1 tusks" is certainly "relevant."

Indeed, it is more than relevant; it isdispositive,

It is of interest to note that R. MeirLeibush Malbim, in his commentary onLeviticus 11:7, describes an animal re-markably similar to the habirusa, Malbimreports that the animaL. which he calls a"tai'asu," is found in the tropical areas ofSouth America and possesses four stom-achs, Although Malbim is unclear, andperhaps even contradictory, with regard

to whether this animal chews the cud, hereports that it has incisors in the upperjaw, As has been noted carlier, absence ofincisors is regarded by the Gemara, Hullin59a, as proof that the animal chews itscud and the converse is rcgarded as proofthat it is unclean, i,e" the prcsence of

incisors is incompatible with chewing thecud, Accordingly, it must be assumed thatMalhim intends us to understand that thetai'asu does not chew its cud. Malbimdeclares the animal to be non-kosher andpoints to its physical characteristics in

order to illustrate the use of the futuretense in the phrase "ve-hu ¡;era 10 yi¡;ar-it

will not chew the cud," According to

Malbim, the verse alludes to this particularspecies of swine and declares that, al-though it has developed some character-istics of a ruminant, viz., four stomachs, itremains non-kosher because "it will notchew the cud,"

The animals described by Malbimarc peccaries originally known as dicotylcsand now usually referred to as tayassu,Their anatomical characteristics are de-scribed in some detail by Georges Cuvier,Rè¡;ne Animal (Paris, 18 I 7), I, 237, andW, H, Flower and R. Lydekker, AnIntroduction 10 the Study o/, MammalsLivin¡; and Extinct (London, 1891), p, 289,

61

TRADITION: A Journal of' Orthodox Thought

as well as by Sir Robert Owen in his pre-viously cited work, On the Anatomy olVertebrates, I II, 465, A more recent dis-cussion, in which the animals are referredto as tayassu, appears in E, p, Walker,

Mammals olthe World, 3rd edition (Bal-timore, 1975), pp, 1355 and 1365-66, Theanimal is indeed found only in the WesternHemisphere, as reported by Malbim, Thetayassu is found primarily in Central andSouth America, although Walker statesthat it is also found in Texas, New Mexicoand Arizona. Malbim appears to be inac-curate in describing the tayassu as pos-

sessing a four-chambered stomach, Sir

Robert Owen states that the stomach isdivided into three compartments, whileE, p, Walker reports that although itsstomach is more complex than that of thepig, it is only two-chambered, All agreeon the crucial point, vii., that the tayassuis non-ruminating.

Were the ba birusa to chew the eud asoriginally alleged, its kashrut status would,at best, have been doubtfuL. However,since all available evidence indicates thatit lacks the physical criteria of a kosheranimal, it must, of course, be regarded asnon-kosher.

SEFIRAT HA-OMER AND THE OBSERVANCE OF SIIAVlJ'mFOR TRAVELLERS CROSSING THE DATELINE

A person travelling across the PacificOcean from east to west, and hence fol-lowing the path of the sun, will lose a fullday in crossing the international dateline,Thus, for example, if he crosses the date-line at prcciscly 6:00 P,M" Sunday, Jan-uary 10th, he will find himself in a localein which the time is 6:00 P,M" Monday,January i I th, and will have lost an entireday, Conversely, if a person travels in theopposite direction from the sun, i,e" fromwest to east, he will gain a full day, Thus,for example, if he crosses the dateline atprecisely 6:00 P,\1., Monday,January 11th,he will find himself in a locale in which thetime is 6:00 P,M, Sunday, January 10th,and hence will have gained an entire day,There is, to be sure, considerable con-

troversy with regard to the location of thedateline for purposes of Halakhah, Onewho crosses the halakhically recognizeddateline, wherever it is established, willfind himself having gained or lost a day interms of calculating the days of the weekfor purposes of religious observances,

Thus, a traveller from east to west willobserve his next Shabbat upon expirationof only a five-day period, whereas a travel-ler from west to east will experience sevenfull weekdays before observing anotherShabbat, This is so because the Sabbath

62

is observed, not on an individual basis

upon expiration of six days of labor, butin accordance with objective determina-tion of the day at the longitude at whichone finds oneself. Hence all Jews in anygiven locale observe the Sabbath in a uni-form manner. The same is true with regardto observance of festivals which occuron specific days of the month20

A problem does, however, arise withregard to fulfillment of the mitsvah ofselirat ha-omer, the counting of the 49days between Pesah and Shavu'ot, Osten-sibly, the counting ofthe days of the omerdoes not necessarily entail the counting ofconsecutive days of the week or of con-secutive days of the month, but simply ofconsecutive twenty-four-hour periods,Thus it might appear that the travellermay ignore the date of the month in thelocale in which he finds himself and con-tinue counting consecutive days in seriam,This, however, would lead to an incon-gruity with regard to the observance of

Shavu'ot, The traveller journeying fromeast to west will find that the festival occursone day prior to his completion of thecounting of seven full weeks; the travellerjourneying from west to east will completethe counting of the seven-week period butwill experience a delay of one day before

1. David Bleich

Shavu '01 is obscrvcd in the area in whichhe finds himsclf. Scripture, however,

commands that the festival be observedon the day immediately following com-pletion of the counting of the seven-weekperiod: "Until the morrow after the scv-enth week shall you number fifty daysand you shall bring a new meal-offeringunto the Lord" (Leviticus 23: 16), Thus,the observance of Shavu '01 is inexorablylinked to the counting of the orner.

\1oreover, the counting ofthc days of thisseven-week period is associated with theoffcring of a sacrifice of the newly

harvested produce, The reckoning isessentially the counting off of days untilthe arrival of the appointed time for theoffering, Since the offering is a single

communal act it would be somewhatincongruous to define the counting of theorner as a personal, and hence variable,act with the result that a person maycomplete his own reckoning either a dayearlier or a day later than the day asso-ciated with the meal-offering,"

A highly novel resolution of this prob-lem is presented by Rabbi Menachem Men-del Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe,in his Yiddish-language Likkulei Sihoi,Ill, Parshal L'rnor("lewYork, 5724), Thismaterial was translated into Hebrew andpublished in a work cntitled lIddushimu-Bi'urim he-Shas (Jerusalem, 5739), no,36, \1ore recently,in honor of RabbiSchnccrson's cightieth birthday in 5743,Chabad Lubavitch of Ontario, Canadapublished a collection of articles entitledGevuraiah she! Torah which contains anearlier and somewhat different version ofthis material in the form of a responsumcomposed by Rabbi Schneerson in 5709as well as a number ülbrieflcttcrs writtenin 5718 and 5730, one of which appearedin a Lubavitch publication, Kovels YagdilTorah, no, 3 (Jerusalem, Tammnz 5737),p, 22, The balance of this material earlierappeared in Likkulei Sihoi, VIL ('Iew

York, 5732), addenda, pp, 284-287. All

of these letters are also published in theaddenda to Hiddushirn u-Bi'urirn be-Shas,pp, 355-357, These letters also appear inRabbi Schneerson's recently published

rcsponsa collection, Yagdil Torah: Teshu-vol u-Bi'urirn be-Shulhan Arukh (KfarHabad, 5741), no. 105.

Ostensibly, the problem of countingthe orner under these circumstances can-not be resolved by escaping between thehorns of the dilemma, Rather. one or theother of the horns must be firmly seized,Either the counting of the orner is notpersonal and individ ual, but entails thecounting of the particular day as it isestablished at a given geographic point,or the observance of Shavu '01, unlike theobservance of other festivals, is not uni-form in any given place, In his more recentwritings, Rabbi Schneerson does not hes-itate to affirm that the second thesis iscorrect. Accordingly, he rules that the

traveller should continue counting thedays of the orner consecutively withoutinterruption or repetition and observe theShavu '01 festival on the morrow of hiscompletion of the counting of scvcn fullwecks. Thus, if the traveller hasjourneyedfrom east to west he will observe Shavu'oton the seventh day of Sivan, i,c" one daylater than the indigenous Jewish populace,and ifhe has travelled from west to east hewill observe Shavu '01 on the fifth day of

Sivan, i.e., one day earlier than his localneighbors,

To be sure, Shavu'ol, unlike otherfestivals, is not inherently associated witha specific day of the month, It uniformlyoccurs on the fiftieth day following thefirst day of Passover. Since, in the calendarpresently in use, Nisan uniformly containsthirty days and Iyar uniformly containstwenty-nine days, Shavu'ol always occurson the sixth day of Sivan, However, inearlier periods of Jewish history, whenthe Bel Din sanctificd the months on thebasis of witnesses testifying to the sightingof the new moon, it was entirely possiblefor both Nisan and Iyar to be eithertwenty-nine or thirty days in length, Thus,in those times, Shavu '01 might occur oneither the fifth or seventh day of Sivan aswell as on the sixth day of Sivan-precisely the dates on which, arguably,the traveller crossing the dateline mustobserve the festivaL. The fact that Shavu '01

63

TRA DITION: A Journal olOrthodox Thought

might have occurred on the fifth or theseventh day of Sivan in days gone by is,however, not dispositive with regard tothe problem confronted by the travellerwho crosses the dateline, When the BelDin declared both "lisan and Iyar to betwenty-nine or thirty days in length, thedate of Shavu'ol was determined as

occurring on the fifth or the seventh ofSivan for all of IsraeL. The fundamcntalquestion posed by the datelinc problem iswhether the observance of Shavu'ol isindividual and contingent upon cach per-son's own reckoning ofselirah. or whetherit is universal and hence uniform for allJcws in a given geographic locale,

Although there is cogent reason toquestion whether the counting of the daysof the omer is a matter of individual reck-oning or whether it is entirely objectiveand standard, therc is strong reason toassume that, even if the reckoning of theomer is personal in nature, the observanceof Shavu '01 is nevertheless uniform for all

Jews, To wit: a minor who reaches reli-gious maturity during the omer or aproselyte who becomes a convert toJudaism during that period is certainlyobliged to observe Shavu'ol together withall of Israel even though those individualsare under no obligation to count "seven

full weeks," Moreover, according to manyearly authorities, there is no longer a bib-lical obligation to count sejirah in thepresent era, Nevertheless, the biblicalobligation to observe the festival ofShavu'ol has certainly not lapsed, RabbiSchneerson counters this objection byasserting that it is not the obligation tocount the seven weeks of the omerperiod which determines the observanceof Shavu'ol, but the variable and varyingsituational basis upon which that countingis predicated which determines the dateon which Shavu '01 must be observed,

Rabbi Schneerson further opinesthat, although the traveller who crossesthe dateline must obscrve Shavu'ol oneither the fifth or the seventh day of Sivan,he must nevertheless omit the phrase, "thetime of the giving of our Torah (zenianmalan Toralenu)" from the liturgy of the

64

festival since the giving of the Torah iscommemorated on the sixth day of Sivan,the date on which the Torah was actuallygiven and not on the fifth or the seventhof Sivan.Jì

In his earlier responsum, written in5709, Rabbi Scheerson's conclusions aremueh more tentative and indeed some-what at variance with his later enunciatedviews, In his earlier version of this mate-rial, Rabbi Sehneerson explains the natureof the perplexity concerning the propermode of counting the orner and adviseshis interlocutor to count the orner twoseparate ways, i,e" to count both the dayof the orner according to his own reckon-ing and also to count the day in the mannerin which it is counted by the local popu-lace, In a letter written in 57 I 8 he adds

that there should he an interval betweenthe two acts of counting lest the countingappear to be contradictory in nature, Inthat letter, Rabbi Schneerson further rulesthat a person finding himselfin this situa-tion should not pronounce the blessingprior to counting the omer, 2J Citing J)evarAvraham. I, no. 34, Rabbi Schneersonexplains that the blessing cannot be pro-nounced, even though one of the two actsof counting must be correct, because a"doubtful" or inconclusive act of countingdoes not constitute "counting" which, bydefinition, must be precise and accurate,"

With regard to observance ofShavu'ol, Rabbi Schneerson, in his firstresponsum (5709), rules that a travellerjourneying from America to Australiamust regard the day which is observed inAustralia as the first day of Shavu '01 as

being only "doubtfully" Shavu '01 insofaras he is concerned since according to hisindividual reckoning it is the last day ofthe orner, Accordingly, he advises hisinterlocutor to refrain from activitiesprohibited on the Yom Tov, but to countthe 49th day of the orner and to don phy-lacteries on that day, The traveller must,of course, observe the second day of thefestival as a holy day in every respect.

Rabbi Schneerson, however, rules thatthe traveller need not ohserve a third dayas the "doubtful" second day of Shavu'ol,

1. David Bleich

He reasons that the observance of thesecond day of the festival in our day isdescribed in the Gemara, BeIlsah 4b, as acontinuation of the practice which wasextant when a fixed calendar did not exist.But, argues Rabbi Schneerson, since theeighth of Sivan was never observed by theindigenous populace in the locale in whichthe traveller finds himself, there exists nocustom to that effect which must be con-tinued, r A similar rationale is advancedby Bel Yosej: Orah HayyIm 624 withregard to the absence of a two-day

observance of Yom Kippur,) However, itshould follow that a traveller journeyingin the opposite direction, i,e" from Aus-tralia to the United States, must indeedobserve Shavilot for a three-day period,viz" the fifth, sixth and seventh days ofSivan, and, in accordance with Rabbi

Schneerson's ruling, don phylacteries onboth the fifth and seventh of Sivan,

In his original responsum (5709),

Rabbi Schneerson also considers the pos-sibility that there may be a double obliga-tion both with regard to counting the omerand observance of Shavu '01, i,e" oneobligation to count the Dmer and toobserve Shavu '01 on the basis of each

individual's personal reckoning and asecond obligation predicated upon theestablished day in any given locale,According to this analysis, thc dualcounting of the days of the omer andobservance of Shavu'ot on multiple dayswould not be born of doubt but wouldconstitute a normative requirement.

In yet another letter, written in thesummer of 5718, Rabbi Schneerson ad-vises that the omer be counted in accord-ance with the individual's own reckoningbut that the benediction be omitted, He isnevertheless more firm in asserting thatShavu '01 be observed in accordance withthe individual's own reckoning but coun-sels that the concurrence of two othercompetent halakhic decisors be secured,

An entirely opposite view is expressedby R, Ya'akov Yitzchak Weisz in a briefresponsum published in his Teshuvoi

MInhar YIlshak, ViiI, no, 50, MinhalYIlshak rules that, as is the case with

regard to other festivals, Shavu '01 must

be observed solely in accordance with thereckoning of the geographic locale inwhich one finds oneself. MInhal Yitshakadopts the same position with regard tothe counting of the omer and expressesincredulity at the suggestion that a travcl-ler from east to west might still count theforty-ninth day of the omer after themeal-offering of the produce of the newharvest has 'been offered in Jerusalem,

The question of the proper method ofcounting the Dmer is also raised, but notfirmly resolved, by R, Joseph Cohen inhis Harerei KDdesh, a commentary onR, Zvi Pesach Frank's Mikra'ei Kodesh,Pesa!i II, no, 63, note i (p, 214),

Since, according to MInhat Yiishak,counting of the omer is akin to celebrationof festivals and is determined in accord-ance with the local reckoning, a personjourneying from west to cast will perforcecount the identical day of the omer ontwo consecutive evenings, Yet, in a noteappended to his original responsum,

Rabbi Schneerson declares the countingof the same day of the Dmer on two con-secutive days to be an absurdity, Accord-ing to MInhal YItshak's analysis, such apractice is, in the situation describcd,

entirely cogent.Minhai YIlshak fails to discuss the

question of whether a traveller countingthe omer in the same manner as the localpopulace may recite the benediction, Theaccepted practice, as codificd by ShulhanArukh, Orah Hayyim 489:8, is that a per-son who has forgotten to count one of thedays of the omer must continue countingthe subsequent days but does not pro-

nounce the benediction since it is no longerpossible for him to count "seven fullweeks." It would then stand to reason

that a traveller journeying from cast towest would no longer pronounce thebenediction since he perforce has skippedone day of the reckoning, It should alsofollow that a person contemplating such ajourney during the orner should not pro-nounce the benediction even on the daysprior to crossing the dateline since he isfully aware of the fact that he will not

65

TRADITION: A Journal olOrthodox lhought

count the full complement of forty-nincdays,

The question of pronouncing the

blessing prior to counting the orner onsubsequent days is expressly addressed inanother, somewhat earlier source, R,David Spira, Teshuyoi Bnei Zion, i(Jerusalem, 5698), no, 14, sec, 23, in abrief comment, docs indeed rule explicitlythat the traveller who crosses the halakhicdateline in the course of travelling fromeast to west can no longer recite theblessing upon counting the orner, Al-though Hnei 7ion is not quoted by any ofthe heretofore cited authorities, it is quiteevident that his position is identical tothat of Minhai Yiishak, Bnei 7ion:S

opinion is, however, cited by She 'arirn

haMelsuyanirn ba-Halakhah 120:2, note 5,Rabbi David Schorr, in an article

appearing in the Nisan 5735 issue ofHa- Pardes, adopts a position that isessentially identical to that of MinhatYiishak but adds that a pcrson crossing

the dateline from east to west must countthc orner a second time on the day of hiscrossing, He reasons that, since a personis required to count the orner in accord-ance with the reckoning of the orner inthe locale in which he finds himself, thatobligation devolves upon him immediatelyupon crossing the halakhic dateline, Ifthis position is accepted the previously

discussed problem is obviated since, infact, no day has been omitted in thecounting of the orner, Against this view itmay be argued that an individual is subjectto but one obligation with regard to thecounting of any single cyle of night andday during the urner period, The specificobligation, to be sure, is objectively

determined by geographic location but,once the obligation has been correctlydischarged, no further obligation can

devolve upon the individual during thccourse of that day,

66

The situation of a traveller jour-neying from west to east is significantlydifferent. Such a traveller does not missany day in the reckoning of the days

of the orner, On the contrary, if heis required to conform to local practicein counting the orner on the evening

subsequent to crossing the dateline, hemust count exactly as he did the pre-ceeding evening before crossing the date-line, The weeks which he has countedare thus certainly "full" ones, Accord-ingly, there appears to be no reasonfor him not to resume recitation ofthe benediction as hc resumes consecutivecounting of the days of the orner sub-

sequent to having counted the same

day a second time, Indeed, there mightbe strong reason for the traveller topronounce the benediction even on thetwo consecutive days that he, in his

counting, pronounces to be the same

da y of the orner since on both dayshe is fulfilling the normative requirementof counting the orner in accordance

with the reckoning of the area in which heis located,

Bnei 7ion:S ruling with regard to a

person travelling in the opposite direction,i.e., from west to east, is more complex,Bnei Zion declares that a tra veller findinghimself in such a situation cannot pro-nounce a blessing upon counting the orneron the evening following the crossing ofthe dateline from west to east since hehas already proclaimed that particularday of the orner in an identical manneron the previous evening. This view isalso cited by She'arirn ha-Metsuyanirn

ha-Halakhali Bnei Zion further expressessome reservation with regard to whetherthe traveller may resume recitation of theblessing on subsequent evenings butappears to incline to the position that thetwo days are to be deemed a single "longday" (yurna arikhta),25

1. David Bleich

BRIDES LACKING A UTER\JS

Jewish law requires that, subsequentto accepting a proposal of marriage, a

woman regard herself as a niddali Ac-cordingly, even if she docs not menstruateduring the interim period, the bride mustnevertheless perform the requisite exam-inations over a period of seven days andimmerse herself in a mikveli The Gemara,Niddah 66a, explains that the emotionalreaction generated by acceptance of amarriage proposal may cause minute

spotting which, because of its paucity, isnot perceived either tactilely or visually,Jewish law also requires that a virgin beconsidered a niddah subsequent to herinitial intcrcoursc. Although only the nowof uterine blood causes a woman tobecome a niddah, rabbinic law requiresthat a virgin regard herself as a menstruantupon her initial act of inercourse lest con-fusion arise due to lack of awareness ofthe halakhic distinction between hymenaland uterine bleeding,

In a collection of articles, Kovels

Ma'adanei Melekli published by theLubavitch Foundation of Great Britainin 5743 in honor of the eightieth birthdayof the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi ShrageFeivish Schneebalg examines the questionof whether a woman who lacks a uterus isrequired to undergo immersion in a

mikveh, The uterus may be absent as aresult of a congenital anomaly, as in thecase presented for Rabbi Schneebalg's

consideration, or, more frequently, as aresult of a hysterectomy, In either event,it is physiologically impossible for a

woman lacking a uterus to become aniddah, sincc, by dcfinition, only uterinebleeding causes a state of niddah, Thus,under such circumstances, there is no fac-tual consideration upon which to basefear of unperceived menstrual bleeding,

To be sure, both post-menopausal and

pre-menarcheal brides are required to waitthe statutory seven-day period and to

undergo immersion even though the like-lihood of menstrual spotting is highly

remote," 1'evertheless, the question whichmust be resolved is whether the rabbinicdecree is blanket in nature and applies inall cases, including those in which there isno physiological possibility of the bridebecoming a niddali or whether it is limitedto cases in which at least a remote possi-bility of intramenstrual spotting is present.

Teshuvoilmrei David, no, 125, rulesthat the seven-day waiting period and

subsequent immersion in a mikveh isrequired even in the case of a bride whohas no uterus, lmrei David's principalargument is based upon a statement ofthe Gemara, Ketubol 60b. Jewish lawforbids a widow or divorcée to enter intoa new marriage until a three-month periodhas elapsed following the termination ofthe first marriage, This statutory waitingperiod is required in order that there beno question with regard to the paternityof a future child in the event that the

woman is found to be pregnant shortlyafter consummation of the second mar-riage, The Gemara, Ketubot 60b, declaresthat even a post-menopausal woman, abarren womani a woman who experiencesa miscarriage after the death of her hus-band or after her divorce, or a womanwho "cannot give birth," i,e" a womanwho lacks a uterus, is also required towait the statutory three-month period,

This decree is clearly universal in natureand applies to all women, including

women who could not possibly becomepregnant. Although the rationalc uponwhich thc decree is based docs not applyin such situations, and hence there existsno compelling reason to require suchwomen to wait three months, the rabbinicdecree is nevertheless applicable becauseit admits no exception (10 pelug), Argu-ably, the same should be true with regardto the rabbinic decrees requiring prospec-tive brides, and virgins subsequent to theirfirst act of intercourse, to consider them-selves as menstruants,

Rabbi Schneebalg, however, rebuts

67

TRA DITlON: A Journal of' Orthodox Thought

this argum,nt, claiming that the rabbinicdecree concerning the three-month waitingperiod cannot serve as a paradigm withregard to other rabbinic edicts, Rashi,

Yevamot 42b, comments that the edictwas explicitly made applicable to womenwho could not possibly bcar children lestother woman erroneously fail to observethe three-month waiting period, Hence,

argues Rabbi Schneebalg, absent evidence

of specific intent on the part of the Sagesto include a woman lacking a uterus inother edicts, there is no basis for assumingthat such decrees are universal in nature,

Some evidence that these edicts arcnot universal in nature, and hence are notdesigned to apply when there is no pos-sibility of menstrual blecding, may be ad-duced from the comments of R. ShelomoKluger, Mei Niddah, Kuntres Aharon192:4. In discussing the status of a pre-

menarchcal bride, Rabbi Shelomo Klugerdeclares that, although there is no cogentreason to suspect possible menstrual

bleeding, the pre-menarcheal bridc mustconsider herself a niddah because younggirls wcre not exempted from the provi-sions of the decree (10 pelug), R, ShclomoKluger, however, cites the opinion of

R. Zalman \1argulies who maintains thatthe decree is applicable to pre-menarchealwomen because of the remote possibility,however unlikely, that they may indeedexperience bleeding, Thus, R, Zalman\1argulies quite evidently rejects the con-cept of 10 pelug in this context. Even

R, Shclomo Kluger, who accepts theconcept of 10 pelug in this instance, mightwell maintain that the concept of 10 pelugapplies only to situations in which theconcern is at least a logical possibility, butnot in situations in which such legislationwould be entirely devoid of cogency,Moreover, Taz, Orah Hayyim 275: i andF:ven ha-Ezer I i 9: i 2, asserts that the COI1-cept of 10 pelug applies only to varyingsituations in which a given individual maybe found, i,e" a person to whom a rabbinicedict is applicable may be bound by thatedict under all circumstances, but that theprinciple does not apply "from person toperson," i,e" it does not apply to a person

68

who does not at all come within the ambitof rabbinic intent. Tai maintains that aperson to whom a particular rabbinic edictis at no time logically applicable is not atall subject to that legislation, Additionalevidence for the validity of this thesis isadvanced by R. Joscph Saul Nathanson,Sho'el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, i,no. 22,

R, Yitzchak Ya'akov Weisz, Teshu-

vot Minhat Yitshak, I, no, 125, see, 7,adduces evidence supporting the view thateven a bride lacking a uterus must undergoimmersion in a mikveh. Genesis 29:31

describes Rachel as an "akarah," Rashi,

Yevamot 42b and Sotah 25b, states thatthe term "akarah" does not simply mean"barren" but is derived from the Hebrewverb "akor" meaning "to uproot" or "topluck out" and is used to dcseribe a womanwho is sterile because she lacks a uterus,Accordingly, a miracle was necessary inorder to effect a physical change so

that Rachel might conceive. Yet, Arukhha-Shulhan, Yoreh f)e'ah i 92:3, statesthat Laban's motive in directing Jacob towait a week following his marriage toLeah before marrying Rachel (Genesis

29:27) was a concern for fulfilling thehalakhic requirement that a bride deemherself to be a niddah and wait thestatutory seven-day period before immers-ing herself in a mikveh (and not becauseof the reason given by the Palestinian

Talmud, Mo 'ed Katan 1 :7, cited byTosafot, Mo 'ed Karan 8b, to the effectthat "one should not mingle one celebra-

tion with another celebration" and henceif one sister marries, the second sistershould not marry until the week-long

nuptial celebrations of the first sister havebeen completed), Subsequent to Laban'sduplicity in substituting Leah in place ofRachel, a new agreement was reached

between Laban and Jacob for an addi-tional seven years of labor in return forthe hand of Rachel in marriage, The

negotiation of that agreement was tanta-mount to a new proposal of marriagewhich again req uired a waiting period ofseven days, However, since Rachel lackeda uterus and hence it would have been

1. David Bleich

impossible for her to hecome a niddah,this concern would not have been co-gent unless the rabbinic edict applies toall women without exception, A1inhatYitshak, however, rejects this argumentand states that Rachel may have under-gone a partial hysterectomy which left aportion of her uterus intact and, accord-ingly, she might yet have been capable ofexperiencing menstruation, Rabbi Schnee-balg notes that Scripture describes Rachelas an akarah only after it reports her mar-riage to Jacob, Failure to disclose Rachel'sbarrenness may well have been part ofLaban's duplicity. Hence, Jacob may havebeen unaware of Rachel's condition priorto their marriage and, therefore, may haveerroneously insisted upon the seven-day

waiting period,In his most recent volume, Teshuvot

Minhat Yitshak, Vlll, no, 93, Rabbi Weiszaffirms his earlier position that a bride

who has undergone a hysterectomy neednot immerse herself in a mikveh, but cau-tions that it is necessary to determine thatthe entire uterus has been removed 21

Nevertheless, R, Judah 1 ,eib Zirelson,Ma 'arkhei Uv, no, 44, rules that a bride

1. Cf., however, Va- Yikra Rahhah 13:3:Midrash Shohar Tov, Psalms 146; andR. Joseph Alba, Seier ha-Ikkarim, ILL,chapters 13-19,

2. See also R. Moses Sofer, Tura,Mosheh, Deuteronomy 14:8.

3. See also Tanhuma Yashan, Shemini 14,4. For other analyses of this midrashic

statement see sources cited hy R.

Mcnahem Kasher, Turah Shelemah,vol. XXVIII, Leviticus 11:7, sec. 34, Itshould be noted that Or ha-Hayyim's

version of this midrashic statement isquoted verbatim by Abarhanel, Yeshu at

Meshihu, Ha-Iyun ha-Reví'i, chapter 3,and attributed to Bereishii Rahhah.

Ho\vcvcr, i\barbanel states that Berei-shit RaMah itself explains the commentas referring to the "devouring" of Edamrather than to the consumption of swine.Rabhenu Rahya also cites a variant

who has had a hysterectomy must undergoimmersion in a mikveh hecausc of theprinciple of 10 pelug, Ma'arkhei Lev

incongruously adds that even subsequentto a hysterectomy there exists the possi-bility of menstrual bleeding from tissuessurrounding the uterus, However, as

Rabbi Schneebalg poinfs out, Silra, Par-shat Metsora, chapter six, 4:2, followedby Rambam, Hilkhot !ssurei Bi'ah 5:5,and Shulhan Aruk/i Yoreh De 'ah 183: I,declare that only uterine blood generatesa state of niddah. Accordingly, R, JosephEngel, Teshuvot Maharash, VII, no, 12,and R. Samuel Walkin, Teshuvot Lekan

Aharon, II, no. 3, rule that a woman whohas undergont a hysterectomy cannot

become a niddah.Rabbi Schneebalg concludes his dis-

cussion by citing SeIer Hasidim, no. 389,

whose phraseology indicates that herequires immersion in a rnikveh even by ahridc who has certainly not experiencedany discharge of blood, In light of theseconí1icting opinions, Rabbi ScIineebalg

advises that a bride who lacks a uferusshould immerse herself in a mikveh with-out pronouncing the benediction,

NOTES

reading similar to that of Or ha-Hayyim.Rabbenu Bahya himself. however, alsointerprets that version allegorically. See

also Recanati, Leviticus i 1:7, and Teshu-vol Radhaz, II, no. X28,

5, The front teeth in the upper j¡iw of

ruminants are replaced by a horny pad.The front teeth of the lower jaw arc

directed fonvard and, upon closing themouth, simply press the grass tightlyagainst this pad, When the head is jerkedsideways the gum i~ cut through by thesharp edges of the lov."er front teeth.See Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago,1966), XIX, 752,

6, See Bí'ur ha-Gra, Yoreh De'ah 79:3.7. CL, however, Rambam, Cummentary

on the Mishnah, Niddah 52b, and\1aharsha, ad locum,

8. Helev is the fat which, in a sacrificed

animal, was offered upon the altar. Since

69

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

only "cattle" were offered as sacrifices,the fat of a harrah or "wild beast" is

permitted.9. See Maharsha, Hullin 59b, and /vfahatsii

ha-Shdel. Orah Ha).lim 586:3.

(0. It may! he noted that the word "babirusa"means "pig-deer" in the language of theindigenous populace of its native habi-tat. The natives assigned the animal thisname btcause its tusks resemble theantlers of a deer. See E, 1'. Walker,

Mammals of ,he World, 3rd edition(Baltimore, 1975), p. 1364.

1 i. See Rambam, Commentary on ¡heMishnah. Hu/lin 59a,

(2. The presence of horns is a sufficientcriterion of kashrur, but not a necessarycriterion. Cf. Rambam, Rabad andMaggid Mishneh, Hilkhat Ma'akhalatAsurot 1:2,

13. With regard to other halakhic concerns,the Gemara in a number of instancesrecords conflicting views as to whetheror not paternal identity is also transmit-ted to progeny (hosheshin le-zera ha-av).However, since a non-kosher animalcannot sire offspring by mating with ananimal of a kosher species, the questionof "patrilineal sucn:ssion" docs not arisein this context. The issue might how-ever, arise in a different context, viz., ina situation in which an embryo isremoved from the uteriis of a pig andtransferred to the uterus of a kosher

animaL. The offspring, conceived in thewomb ofa non-kosher animal but whichgestates in the \vomb ofa kosher animalfrom which it is born, would not be for-bidden as)'olse. Since it is the "product"of two animals, one kosher and the othernon-kosher, the principle zeh ve-zeh

gorem applies, i.e., when a second causalagent is present, the product is no longerregarded as having "emerged" from thenon-kosher animaL. However, the prin-ciple of hosheshin le-zera ha-av estab-lishes that paternal identity is also

transmitted to progeny and hence theoffspring acquire the identity of thenon-kosher father. In the case of anembryo or ovum removed from a nol1-kosher animal, it is arguable that theidentity of the species of the animal

which produced the ovum is transferredto the offspring even if paternal identityis not transferred in a like manner.

14, See Pithei Teshuvah. Yoreh De'ah 79: i.15, Cf. Arukh ha-Shulhan, Yoreh De'ah

79:41.

70

i 6. It must be noted that Hazol/ Ish demon-strates that the ruling of Hayyei Adamapplies to both hayyoi and hr.hemoi

without distinction and, moreover,

shows that, since this ruling is predicatedupon the comment of Shakh, any dis-tinction between hayyot and behemoiwould be untenable, Cf. R. MosesTendler, Chavrusa, March 1985, p. 3.

17. See also The Wall Street Journal, March27, 1985, p. 37, and L. Krishtalka,"Missing Links," Carnegie Ma!Eazine,

May-June, 19R5, p. 39.18. See also Davis, loc. cit" p, 391.19. See also E, p, Walker, Mammalsolihe

World, p, 1355, and L Krishtalka,"Missing Links," Carnegie ,Magazine,

May-June, 1985, p, 39,20, See Teshuvoi Radbaz, I, no. 76:

Feshuvot t:ven Yekarah. Alahadura

Kamma, Orah Hayyim, no. I i; Teshu-vol Havalsr.e! ha-Sharon I, no. 47;"leshuvot Havalim ba-/\¡'e'imim, iv, no.3; and Teshuvo! A1inhar Y¡rshak, VI.no. 84.

21. A somewhat related question ariseswith regard to the observance ofI lanuk kah, Although the eight-day oh-servance commemorates the miracle ofthe cruze of oil, the kindling ofthe Hanukkah lights each night duringan eight-day period is not a unitaryobligation. i.e., an observance whichcommences on the 25th of Kislev andcontinues for eight consecutive days

\-vithou! regard to calendrical consid-erations. "lere that the case, the travel-

ler who crosses the halakhic dateline

during the week of Hanukkah wouldcontinue to kindle the Hanukkah lightsfor a complement of eight days com-mencing with the .evening of his ownfirst kindling. Since, however, the obli~gation is not unitary, hut rather eight

discreet obligations which devolve uponthe individual on each of the day's ofHanukkah, a voyager crossing the date-line \-viIl be bound to the same observ-ance as the indigenous inhabitants ofthe locale in which he finds himself.Thus, a traveller journeying from eastto west wiII miss one day and kindleHanukkah candles for a total of onlyseven days, while a traveller journeyingfrom west to cast will observe an addi-tional day and kindle the lights for anaggregate of nine days. Similarly, itwould appear to this writer that a trav-eller journeying west to east on the last

.I, David Bleich

day of Hanukkah, or during the eve-ning following the la~t day of i Ianuk-kah, must also kindle the Hanukkahlights that evening since, subsequent

to crossing the dateline, he finds him-self in a locale in "'.ihich the date is

that of the last evening of Hanukkah.Cr., however, Rahbi David Schorr,Ha-Parde.~', Nisan 57J5.

However. with regard to circum-cision, which must be performed on theeighth day subsequent to birth, andredemption of the first-born which mustbe performed on the thirty-first day, itwould seem that the days are reckonedin terms of cycles of sunset and sunrisewithout regard to whether or not thedateline has heen crossed. R. Isaac

tiebes. Teshuvor Bet A vi, L no. i i i,adopts this view in a responsum con-cerning redemption of the first-horn. Itwould appear that the samr. principlewould govern determination of halakhicmaturity upon attaining the age ofthir-teen years and one day in the case of amale or twelve years and one day in thecase of a female. Cf., however, the dis-cussions of those questions in R. BetzalelStern, Teshuvoi be- Tsel ha-Hokhmah,I, nos. 75-76. For a discussion of the

import of crossing the dateline withrespect to some aspects of menstruallaws, see R. David Spira, Teshuvoi RneiZioll, I, no. 14, seç. 24.

22, See Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav 494,1; cf"however, !i4agen Avraharn 494: intro-duction and Divrei ll,/ehernyah (addendato Shulhall Arukh ha-Rav), Kunires

Aharol!, 581: L.

23, Cr. R. Menachem Kasher, No 'am,XVIII (5735-36), 357, who is of theopinion that the traveller journeying

from east to west may pronounce theblessing and count the orner using thefollowing formula: "Today is the thirdday of the orner according to the reck-oning of the western part of the Voiorld

and today is the fourth day of the orneraccording to the reckoning of the east-ern part of the world." Similarly, atraveller journeying from west to eastmay' pronounce the blessing and countthe orner using the formula: "Today isthe third day of the orner according tothe reckoning of the western part ofthe world and today is the fourth dayof the nrner according to the reckoningof the eastern part of the world,"

24. Cf., however, Ba'al ha-Ma 'or, Pesahim,

end of chapter 10.

25. See also Rabbi David Schorr, l/a-Pm.des, Nisan 5735, who similarly' statesthat the traveller journeying from westto cast in the midst of the omC'r is

exempt from counting the ornpr on theevening following his crossing of thehalakhic dateline since he has alreadypronounced the number assigned tothat Jay in his coiinting of the orner

the previous evening. This position,however, is not entirely consistent withthe basic thesis upon which it is predi-cated, Vi7., that the obligation regardingse.lirai /1Q-omer is objective and deter-mined by geographic locale. Since eachday must he counted by assigning to itthe proper number at the place ofcounting, the fact that a given day waspreviousl).! counted at a different localeshould not serve to exempt the travellerfrom counting the day in the mannerwhich is correct in the locale in whichhe subsequently finds himself. Indeed,consistent with Rabbi Schorr's ownposition as earlier cited, it may beargued that the traveller journeyingfrom west to cast must repeat the act ofcounting upon reaching the eastern sideof the dateline by pronouncing the dayto be one day earlier in the orner thanhe had pronouned it while yet on thewestern side of the dateline. lt shouldbe noted that She'arirn ha-Afeisuyanirnba~Halakhah! ostensibly citing BneiZion, explains that no new counting ofthe second day of the reckoning of theomer need be performed on the eveningsubsequent to crossing the dateline be-cause the two days arc deemed to be asingle "long day." In point of fact, BneiZioll does not offer this concept as arationale exempting the traveller fromcounting, but as a reason for permittinghim to resume pronouncement of theblessing on subsequent evenings; norindeed does this rationale adequatelydispel the basic problem,

26. However, with regard to post-menopausal women, cf. the discussionofR. Yehudah Asad, Teshuvvl Yehudah

Ya'aleh, i, no. 191.

27, See R. Shelomo Zalman Auerhach's

treatment of a related topic in 1\io 'am,

VIi (5724), 161~i62, Although RahbiAuerbach docs not explicitly refer tothe question of 10 pelug, his omission of

71

72

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

such discussion serves to indicate that,in his opinion, a bride is not required toimmerse herself in a mikveh when it is

known with certainty that she has notexperienced a discharge of blood whichwould cause her to become a niddah.